J-S38009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
DANIEL GRAFT JACKSON :
:
Appellant : No. 3363 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 21, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006149-2015,
MC-51-CR-0042429-2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 11, 2017
Appellant, Daniel Graft Jackson, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas,
following his jury trial convictions of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by
unlawful taking or disposition—movable property.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 reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3502(a)(1), 3503(a)(1)(ii), and 3921(a), respectively.
___________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S38009-17
ON ALL CHARGES WHERE THE EVIDENCE HERE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE AS THE
EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT [APPELLANT] WAS
THE BURGLAR IN QUESTION?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL WHERE THE
GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT
ESTABLISH THAT [APPELLANT] WAS THE PERPETRATOR
OF THIS BURGLARY AND THE VERDICT IS BASED ON
NOTHING MORE THAN SPECULATION, CONJECTURE AND
SURMISE?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE
RESULT OF COURT ERROR WHERE THE COURT PERMITTED
THE JURY TO SEE AN ALTERED[,] DOCTORED VERSION OF
A VIDEOTAPE THAT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN PART, BUT
NOT IN FULL DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND
WHERE THE JURY SAW THE ALTERED VERSION FOR THE
FIRST TIME DURING THE MIDST OF JURY
DELIBERATIONS?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE
RESULT OF COURT ERROR WHERE THE COURT OVER
OBJECTION PERMITTED HEARSAY INTO THE TRIAL AND
WHERE SAID HEARSAY WAS UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL TO
[APPELLANT]?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).2
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Barbara A.
McDermott, we conclude Appellant’s issues on appeal merit no relief. The
trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of those
questions. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed December 12, 2016, at 4-12)
____________________________________________
2
Notwithstanding how he phrases it, Appellant’s fourth issue on appeal
actually challenges the trial court’s alleged admonishment of trial counsel
during the cross-examination of Officer Ingram at trial.
-2-
J-S38009-17
(finding: (1) Ms. Martindale testified she told Appellant where Victim kept
money and directed Appellant to Victim’s house during early morning hours
of 12/12/14; Ms. Martindale also stated she saw Appellant pry open Victim’s
front door without permission; Victim’s house was adapted for overnight
accommodations, and Victim was asleep inside at time of offense; Appellant
proceeded to steal Victim’s pants, which contained approximately
$3,000.00; surveillance video captured Appellant limping from Victim’s
house with pants in hand around 4:00 a.m.; additional surveillance video
from around 8 a.m. revealed Appellant wearing same clothes and walking
with limp; Appellant conceded he was at Victim’s house around 8:00 a.m. on
day of incident; thus, there was sufficient evidence for jury to convict
Appellant of burglary, criminal trespass, and theft by unlawful taking or
disposition; (2) Appellant waived challenge to weight of evidence for failure
to raise claim in trial court; nevertheless, even if Appellant had properly
preserved claim, it would warrant no relief; Commonwealth presented ample
video evidence, which showed Appellant approach Victim’s house and exit
Victim’s house with Victim’s pants; Victim and Officer Muscarnero testified
that Victim’s pants contained large sum of money; Ms. Martindale testified
she told Appellant where Victim kept money and observed Appellant break
into Victim’s home; Victim testified Appellant returned to Victim’s house
around 8:00 a.m. and attempted to steal more money; Victim also stated
Appellant left his photo ID in Victim’s living room after brief struggle; this
-3-
J-S38009-17
evidence is not vague or uncertain; thus, Appellant’s verdict does not shock
court’s conscience; (3) during trial, Commonwealth displayed surveillance
video via projection screen; before Commonwealth rested, parties discussed
brightness and sharpness of video on projection screen and determined jury
should view video on laptop screen; Commonwealth subsequently displayed
video to jury on laptop screen; upon jury’s request to view video during jury
deliberations, Appellant objected to Commonwealth’s brightening of video on
projection screen; after discussion, court determined jury should again view
surveillance video on laptop screen; under these circumstances, court
sustained Appellant’s objection to use of brightened video; thus, Appellant
has failed to demonstrate prejudice, and Appellant’s claim lacks merit; (4)
during cross-examination, defense counsel punctuated many of Officer
Ingram’s answers with personal commentary, which indicated defense
counsel’s approval of Officer Ingram answers; court told counsel he could
ask questions but could not make comments after Officer Ingram’s answers;
despite court’s instruction, counsel continued to provide personal
commentary after Officer Ingram’s responses; as result, court informed
counsel he was talking to himself out loud; court made statements to
counsel in effort to exercise reasonable control over proceedings and to
prevent waste of time; importantly, court phrased statements in way that
made light of counsel’s tendency to provide personal commentary; because
court made statements to preserve order and decorum in courtroom,
-4-
J-S38009-17
Appellant’s claim has no merit). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the
trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/11/2017
-5-
Circulated 06/15/2017 09:49 AM
Com. v. Jackson, D.
Combined Opinion