J-A10006-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
RYAN STANFORD LEE :
:
Appellant : No. 3803 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0007659-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 03, 2018
Appellant, Ryan Stanford Lee, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas following his jury
trial convictions for retaliation against a witness, aggravated assault, simple
assault, recklessly endangering another person, firearms not to be carried
without a license, and persons not to possess a firearm.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4953(a), 2702(a)(1), 2701(a), 2705, 6106(a)(1),
6105(a)(1), respectively.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A10006-18
WHETHER APPELLANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S
ADMISSION OF CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING A
PRIOR UNPROVEN SHOOTING, WHICH IN THE
AGGREGATE, FAR RESULTED IN UNFAIR PREJUDICE
WHICH FAR EXCEEDED THE PROFFERED PROBATIVE
VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE?
WHETHER APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS
VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S ADMISSION OF
TESTIMONY OF OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS DIRECTLY
IMPLICATING APPELLANT IN A PRIOR SHOOTING,
INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, THAT AN INVESTIGATIVE GRAND
JURY FOUND APPELLANT SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PRIOR SHOOTING?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING
APPELLANT’S OBJECTION TO THE PROSECUTOR’S
STATEMENT IN OPENING ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT
WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL JUST PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT
UNDERLYING THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE ASSERTED
FACT EXCEEDED THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER IN LIMINE
WHICH SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED THAT WHICH THE
COMMONWEALTH WAS PERMITTED TO ADMIT RELATIVE
TO APPELLANT’S PRIOR CASE, AND UNFAIRLY
PREJUDICED APPELLANT FROM THE OUTSET?
(Appellant’s Brief at 5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas P.
Rogers, we conclude the Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion fully discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 3, 2017, at 15-34) (finding: (1) evidence
of 2013 shooting involving Appellant was relevant and necessary to establish
motive and intent to retaliate against Victim for Appellant’s mistaken belief
that Victim had “snitched” on Appellant in grand jury proceedings;
-2-
J-A10006-18
Commonwealth did not offer evidence to show Appellant’s propensity to
commit crimes; probative value of evidence outweighed prejudicial effect;
moreover, court twice gave jury cautionary instruction that had been crafted
and agreed upon by counsel; jury acquitted Appellant on charges of
attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault with deadly weapon,
which showed jury could properly weigh evidence; (2) initially, Appellant did
not object at trial to Detective Mitchell’s testimony regarding grand jury
information, so any challenge to this testimony is waived; moreover,
Commonwealth offered Detective Mitchell’s testimony to explain his course
of conduct as investigator in 2013 grand jury; Detective Mitchell testified
that Appellant had received copy of 2013 criminal complaint, which
explained how Appellant learned of Victim’s appearance before grand jury;
this evidence supported Commonwealth’s theory of case; testimony
supported Commonwealth’s theory about Appellant’s motive for shooting at
Victim; moreover, Victim testified immediately after Detective Mitchell;
counsel had plenty of opportunity to confront Victim; court permitted
reading only small portion of 2013 criminal complaint to show it mentioned
Victim’s name and his grand jury testimony; (3) Appellant did not initially
object at trial to Detective Mitchell’s testimony regarding other grand jury
witnesses or ballistic evidence that implicated Appellant in 2013 shooting;
thus, those claims are waived; prosecutor’s opening statement noting
Appellant’s time in prison did not violate motion in limine order, which
-3-
J-A10006-18
specifically made information of Appellant’s guilty plea to 2013 charges
admissible; further, court advised jury that opening statements are not
evidence). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge McLaughlin joins this memorandum.
Judge Ransom did not participate in the consideration or decision of
this case.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/3/18
-4-