J-A02007-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JOSE LOUIS NEGRON
No. 1165 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered June 8, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003826-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, J. FILED JANUARY 04, 2017
I join in the Majority’s admonishment of the Commonwealth’s agents
in this matter. Furthermore, I also conclude that Negron is not entitled to a
new trial. However, my reasoning differs from the Majority’s. I therefore
concur.
The Majority finds that Negron failed to establish that the murder
identified by the CS was the same with which Negron had been charged.
However, this Court reviews the decision of a trial court to grant a new trial
on the basis of after-discovered evidence to determine if the court
committed an abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the
outcome of the case. See Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356, 361
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A02007-16
(Pa. Super. 2010). Here, the trial court found that it was “more likely than
not that CS was referring to this incident.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/15, at 6.
I can discern no abuse of discretion in this finding, given the circumstances
as set forth by the Majority at pages 7-8.
However, I conclude that Negron did not establish that he was
prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s obstruction. “A Brady violation is
established by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be
taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine
confidence in the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1130
(Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). I reach this conclusion based upon a review of
the testimony at trial, which reveals that investigator Driesbach’s testimony
was not of prime importance. During direct examination, investigator
Driesbach did not offer any independent evidence of Negron’s guilt.
To the contrary, the Commonwealth’s case was largely dependent on
the testimony of eyewitnesses to the murder and the testimony of Negron’s
neighbor. See, e.g., N.T, Trial, 1/12-15/15, at 216-217, 239-240, 292-295.
These witnesses placed Negron at the murder, involved in a fight with the
victim, and in possession of a firearm. Furthermore, these witnesses testified
that Negron fled the scene of the crime while acknowledging to his girlfriend
that he had done what he “needed to do.” It was clearly this testimony that
the jury believed in convicting Negron.
-2-
J-A02007-16
As a result, I conclude that Negron failed to undermine confidence in
the verdict. I would therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting a new
trial on this basis.
-3-