J-A26016-20
2021 PA Super 13
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOSEPH WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 1824 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-09-CR-0004366-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 26, 2021
Joseph Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions by a jury of
two counts of first-degree murder1 and one count each of criminal attempt to
commit homicide,2 firearms not to be carried without a license,3 recklessly
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901.
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).
J-A26016-20
endangering another person (REAP),4 possessing an instrument of crime
(PIC),5 and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.6
Williams’ convictions stem from his role in the shooting deaths of
Tommy Ballard and Zyisean McDuffie outside of April Coleman’s home, 914
Elmhurst Avenue, in Bristol, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 2018. On that date,
Coleman hosted a party for her two children who planned to attend their high
school prom later that evening. Several family friends were present, including
Williams, Gary Goddard, Jr.,7 Tajon Skelton, Rayshaun James, and Sincere
McNeil. These individuals were all gathered around Coleman’s Chrysler
Pacifica, which was parked on her front lawn area. At one point, James and
Williams walked away together—outside the view of area pole cameras—so
that James could discreetly give Williams a firearm, which Williams placed into
his waistband. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 178-80. Shortly thereafter,
McDuffie arrived at the Coleman residence, approached the group at the
Chrysler Pacifica, and shook hands only with Williams. Williams then asked
____________________________________________
4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
5 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).
6 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910.
7 At trial, Gary Nathaniel Goddard, Jr., was sometimes referred to as “Static”
or “Little Gary.” For clarity, we refer to him exclusively as “Goddard, Jr.”
Goddard, Jr., is the son of Gary Goddard, who is Williams’ co-defendant, and
who was charged separately in connection with the same shooting incident.
We consider Gary Goddard’s appeal separately at Commonwealth v.
Goddard, 2097 EDA 2019.
-2-
J-A26016-20
why McDuffie did not acknowledge the others, at which point McDuffie stated
that he “didn’t mess with none of [them]” and called them all “bitch.” Id. at
190. At the end of the verbal confrontation, McDuffie left, stating he would
return soon.
When McDuffie returned about forty-five minutes to an hour later, he
was accompanied by Ballard, Jahmier Wilson, and Jackie Valentine; Williams
and Wilson then walked away together to have a private conversation. Within
the larger group, still standing around the Chrysler Pacifica, an argument
ensued amongst Goddard, Jr., McNeil, McDuffie, and Ballard. McDuffie
punched Goddard, Jr., in the face, and within moments, Williams removed the
firearm from his waistband and began firing it at Wilson, who was running
away from him. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 110-14; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19,
at 170-73. Although Williams fired repeatedly at Wilson, Wilson was not
injured, but McDuffie and Ballard were struck. Ballard collapsed in the front
yard of 911 Elmhurst Avenue and McDuffie was struck but still standing in the
driveway of 916 Elmhurst Avenue.
Gary Goddard then appeared, walking down Weston Avenue, with his
hand raised and wielding a firearm. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 281-84.
Standing in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue, Goddard fired in the direction of
the homes, and then at McDuffie, whose legs gave out from under him after
the shots were fired. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 67-68. Goddard stood over
McDuffie and discharged his firearm, lodging a bullet in McDuffie’s head just
-3-
J-A26016-20
above the hairline. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 288; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19,
at 117-22, 226-29.
Williams, Skelton, and James fled the scene of the shooting towards
Skelton’s home, located at 816 Winder Drive. After only a short time, Lemuel
Skelton, Skelton’s father, became aware of the shooting, and directed Williams
and James to leave his residence. Before leaving, Williams took Tajon
Skelton’s white polo shirt. When police arrived at the Skelton residence,
officers found Williams’ abandoned red shirt in a trashcan as a result of a
consensual search.
While conducting a search in the area of the shooting, police observed
Williams running shirtless through a wooded brush area with James. Officers
overheard Williams tell James, “Don’t worry about it; you didn’t do nothing
wrong.” N.T. Jury Trial, 3/7/19, at 168-69. Upon being discovered by the
officers, Williams stated to the police, “Sir, please put me in handcuffs. I don’t
want to die.” Id. at 170-71. Police found Tajon Skelton’s white polo shirt in
Williams’ pants pocket.
The officers subsequently reviewed video footage from pole cameras
near the scene of the shooting. In the footage, police observed Williams,
James, and Skelton running away from the shooting down Winder Drive.
Williams was wearing a red shirt as he fled the scene. The three fleeing
individuals entered the backyard of 703 Winder Drive, remained off-camera
for one minute and thirty seconds while in the yard, and reemerged on camera
travelling further down Winder Drive. The footage of Williams running shows
-4-
J-A26016-20
his hands located around his belt area prior to entering the rear yard of 703
Winder Drive, but after leaving, his hands were no longer in his belt area.
Police were dispatched to that address, where the owner of the property
consented to a search. Police noticed a grill, which was completely covered
in dirt and grime, except for the left handle. After searching the grill, police
recovered a Rossi .38 Special revolver sticking out of the back near the
propane tank. All five of the revolver’s cartridges were spent, and it contained
shell casings. Skelton confirmed through testimony at trial that Williams was
the only one who approached the grill when the three individuals were in the
rear yard of 703 Winder Drive. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 171-73.
Other testimony revealed that Goddard, Jr., chased Wilson from the
scene of the shooting, gun in hand and pointed forward with his arm fully
extended. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 38-41; see also N.T. Jury Trial,
3/18/19, at 223-25.
When police arrived at the scene, Officer Michael Sarciewicz first found
Ballard, who was still able to talk and move, lying in the grass at 911 Elmhurst
Avenue. A crowd then directed the officer to McDuffie, who was unresponsive,
located in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue. The officer observed bleeding and
several gunshot wounds on McDuffie, and commenced cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR). McDuffie and Ballard were both transported to Frankford-
Torresdale Hospital, where McDuffie was pronounced dead on arrival, and
Ballard pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
-5-
J-A26016-20
Doctor Zhonghue Hua conducted the autopsies of Ballard and McDuffie.
Ballard was nineteen years old and suffered three gunshot wounds: one to
his left lower chest area, which punctured his liver and injured the right
kidney; one on his left side, with an exit wound above his buttocks; and one
graze wound to his thumb. The bullet from Ballard’s first wound, which was
still lodged in his body, was removed and turned over to investigators. Doctor
Hua determined that the wound to Ballard’s torso was the cause of his death,
and deemed it a homicide. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at 180-88. McDuffie
was also nineteen years old and suffered five gunshot wounds, including one
each to his forehead above the hairline, his left upper back, his right flank, his
right kneecap, and a graze wound to his right upper chest. Doctor Hua
determined the fatal injury was the gunshot wound to his right flank, which
punctured McDuffie’s kidney. Id. at 193-94. Intact bullets were removed
from McDuffie’s kneecap, head, and abdomen, and were turned over to
investigators. Doctor Hua concluded McDuffie was still alive at the time he
was shot in the head due to evidence of brain bleeding, that the cause of death
was multiple gunshot wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.
Id. at 215.
Police additionally removed two bullets from 914 Elmhurst Avenue—one
had been lodged in the siding of the residence; the other entered a window,
proceeded through the kitchen, through a box of cereal, and into the wall
before striking a flue and falling onto the utility room floor. See N.T. Jury
Trial, 3/6/19, at 212-23, 227. Eric Nelson, of the Montgomery County
-6-
J-A26016-20
Detectives,8 conducted a forensic examination of all six of the recovered
bullets. The bullet recovered from the utility room and the one recovered
from McDuffie’s skull were discharged from a .32 H&R revolver found by police
in Gary Goddard’s apartment. The fatal bullets recovered from McDuffie’s
abdominal wall and Ballard’s right torso were shot from the .38 Rossi Special
firearm, which was recovered from the grill behind 703 Winder Drive. The
other bullets recovered from McDuffie’s right knee and the siding of 914
Elmhurst Avenue were not traced to a known firearm, but were revealed to
have been fired from a firearm similar to a .38 revolver or .9 mm pistol. See
N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 232-39.
On May 5, 2018, the Commonwealth charged Williams with, inter alia,
criminal homicide in connection with the shooting deaths of Ballard and
McDuffie. At a preliminary hearing, the court permitted the Commonwealth
to amend the charges, held all charges for court, and docketed the case at
docket number 4366-2018. On August 14, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a
criminal information reflecting the amendments.9 On October 18, 2018, the
____________________________________________
8 Detective Nelson explained that, although he works for the Montgomery
County Detectives, he often does work for the “surrounding counties,”
including Bucks County. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 213.
9 The information charged Williams as follows: Count 1 – first-degree murder;
Count 2 – first-degree murder; Count 3 – criminal attempt to commit
homicide; Count 4 – aggravated assault; Count 5 – possession of a firearm by
a person prohibited; Count 6 – discharge of a firearm into an occupied
structure; Count 7 – firearms not to be a carried without a license; Count 8 –
REAP; and Count 9 – PIC.
-7-
J-A26016-20
Commonwealth separately charged Williams at docket number 7352-2018 in
connection with the unlawful sale and transfer of the firearm that was used to
kill Ballard and McDuffie.10 At a preliminary hearing held on December 18,
2018, the court held all charges for court, and docketed that case at docket
number 7352-2018.
On March 4, 2019, the court held a hearing prior to the commencement
of trial to resolve outstanding pretrial matters. At that hearing, the court
granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate the two cases against
Williams with the case against Gary Goddard for a joint jury trial. The court
also granted Williams’ motion to sever the charge of possession of a firearm
by a person prohibited.
A joint jury trial commenced on March 4, 2019, and concluded on March
22, 2019. At the close of deliberations, the jury convicted Williams of the
above-stated offenses. During the trial, the court granted the
Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi the charge of aggravated assault,
and granted Williams’ demurrer as to the crimes of discharging of a firearm
into an occupied structure, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities, criminal
conspiracy to commit sale or transfer of firearms, and sale or transfer of a
firearm. After trial, the court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle
____________________________________________
10 The Commonwealth charged Williams as follows: dealing in proceeds of
unlawful activities, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5111(a)(2); criminal conspiracy to commit
sale or transfer of firearms, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; sale or transfer of firearm,
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(g)(2); and tampering with or fabricating physical
evidence, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910.
-8-
J-A26016-20
prosequi possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, which had been
previously severed.
On May 3, 2019, as to docket number 4366-2018, the court sentenced
Williams on Count 1 (first-degree murder) to a period of incarceration of life
without the possibility of parole; Count 2 (first-degree murder) to a term of
incarceration of life without the possibility of parole, to be served consecutively
to Count 1; Count 3 (criminal attempt to commit homicide) to a term of 120
to 240 months’ incarceration; Count 7 (firearms not to be carried without a
license) to a term of 42 to 83 months’ incarceration; Count 8 (REAP) to a term
of 12 to 24 months’ incarceration; and Count 9 (PIC) to a term of 30 to 60
months’ incarceration, with Counts 3, 7, 8, and 9 to be served concurrently to
Counts 1 and 2. As to docket number 7352-2018, the court sentenced
Williams to 12 to 24 months’ incarceration to be served concurrently with the
two consecutive life sentences docketed at 4366-2018.
On May 13, 2019, Williams filed a post-sentence motion under docket
number 4366-2018, which the court denied on May 29, 2019. On June 20,
2019, Williams filed a notice of appeal as to docket number 4366-2018. On
June 25, 2019, the trial court ordered Williams to file a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal no later than 21 days subsequent, pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On August 1, 2019, Williams filed an untimely Rule
-9-
J-A26016-20
1925(b) statement.11 The court subsequently filed a joint opinion as to both
Williams’ and Goddard’s appeals, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(a).
On appeal, Williams presents the following issues for our review:12
1. Did the [c]ourt err in refusing to allow [Williams] to impeach
the hearsay testimony of [Justin Olexovitch,] a Commonwealth
witness?
2. Did the [c]ourt err in admitting a letter [Williams] wrote from
prison to [William Flemming, his cousin,] that had no relevance
to the criminal acts charged in the information?
Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
Both of Williams’ issues present evidentiary challenges. We review a
trial court’s decision of whether or not to admit evidence under the following
well-established standard:
The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion of the
trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal only
upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely
because an appellate court might have reached a different
conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or
____________________________________________
11 Despite Williams’ untimely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, this Court may
consider the merits of his appeal. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39
A.3d 335, 340 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“When counsel has filed an untimely Rule
1925(b) statement and the trial court has addressed those issues[,] we need
not remand and may address the merits of the issues presented.”). The court
addressed Williams’ issues in its Rule 1925(a) opinion; therefore, we may
proceed to the merits of his appeal.
12 Due to a conflict of interest arising from court-appointed appellate counsel’s
representation of Williams, see Motion to be Withdrawn as Counsel, 4/16/20,
Attorney Stuart Wilder, Esquire, entered his appearance before this Court on
April 15, 2020, following his appointment in the trial court. We then permitted
Attorney Daniel Schatz, Esquire’s withdrawal. See Order Granting Application
to Withdraw as Counsel, 4/27/20. Attorney Wilder filed a timely appellate
brief raising the issues contained herein.
- 10 -
J-A26016-20
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as
to be clearly erroneous.
Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970, 975 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Poplawski,
130 A.3d 697, 716 (Pa. 2015)) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
First, Williams argues that the court erred when it denied his motion to
call Detective Gregory Beidler to the stand. Specifically, Williams argues that
he should have been permitted to impeach, through the testimony of
Detective Beidler, a hearsay declaration made by Justin Olexovitch, pursuant
to Pa.R.E. 806 and the Confrontation Clause. We agree with Williams that
there was error, but, as explained in greater detail below, determine that the
error was harmless.
At trial, the Commonwealth called Rayshaun James to testify that Justin
Olexovitch gave him a gun with instructions to give that weapon to Williams.
See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64. The Commonwealth offered James’
testimony to support a conviction for Williams’ alleged conspiracy to commit
sale or transfer of firearms.13 This hearsay statement—James’ testimony that
Olexovitch instructed James to give the gun to Williams—was admitted as a
statement uttered in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy, pursuant to Pa.R.E.
____________________________________________
13 Other evidence introduced by the Commonwealth which supported this
charge included: the unlawful purchase of the murder weapon by a straw
purchaser; how the gun came into Olexovitch’s possession; and, that James
gave Williams the firearm, who only a short time later, used it to murder
Ballard and McDuffie. As previously noted, the court ultimately granted
Williams’ demurrer with regard to this charge.
- 11 -
J-A26016-20
803(25)(E). See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 125; see also Trial Court
Opinion, 3/3/20, at 28-30.
Before resting, the defense made a motion to call Detective Beidler to
the stand. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 124-28. Williams notified the
court that Detective Beidler would testify that when he interviewed Olexovitch,
Olexovitch stated that he gave no one instructions to give a gun to Williams.
Williams claims that this evidence should have been admitted under Rule 806
because it impeaches Olexovitch’s previously-admitted hearsay statement,
which was entered into evidence via Rayshaun James’ testimony. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 11.
As noted above, the trial court denied Williams’ motion to call Detective
Beidler. The court stated for the record that it made its decision in light of the
fact that it had already granted Williams’ demurrer as to conspiracy to commit
sale or transfer of firearms. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 127. The court
opted, instead, to provide the jury with a cautionary instruction: that any
mention of Olexovitch should be disregarded. Id. at 128 (“I’m going to give
the jury an instruction; that they may have heard the name Justin Olexovitch,
but that they should not in any way consider what reference was made to him
in their deliberations because he’s not a party, and for those reasons I’ve given
a special instruction not to consider any connection to Justin Olexovitch by
any issue in this case.”).
Nevertheless, the instruction given to the jury differed materially from
what had been previously discussed on the record, insofar as the court
- 12 -
J-A26016-20
permitted the jurors to determine for themselves the importance of
Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration, rather than instructing that Olexovitch had
no connection to Williams’ case:14
Members of the jury, there was a mention, and it’s for you to
remember, of a person named Justin Olexovitch in this case. I’ll
tell you now that he is not on trial here. Even though he was
mentioned, it’s for you to recall how important his testimony
may have been. I mentioned to you certain witnesses were not
called and the inference you can draw when I mentioned Jahmier
Wilson, but with regard to Justin Olexovitch, it’s enough for me to
tell you that he did not have to testify in this case because he
possessed a legal privilege not to testify, you should not draw an
inference of whether his testimony would have been favorable to
the Commonwealth or the defense, and if he has refused to testify
because of this special legal privilege, no inference should be
drawn by you with regard to this testimony, and I’ll tell you now
that you shouldn’t consider and give great weight to the fact that
____________________________________________
14 The trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the Commonwealth’s brief
apparently misapprehended Williams’ present claim of error: the trial court
understood Williams to be objecting to James’ testimony on the grounds of
inadmissible hearsay, see Trial Court Opinion, 3/3/19, at 28-30, while the
Commonwealth characterizes Williams’ early attempts to grant Olexovitch
immunity as the genesis of his claim. See Appellee’s Brief, at 21-24.
Although a similar trial purpose is evident in each of these strategies, Williams’
present claim stems from his motion to call Detective Beidler to the witness
stand to impeach Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration, pursuant to Rule 806, see
N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 124-28; not Williams’ objection to James’
testimony as hearsay, see N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64, or his motion to
grant Olexovitch immunity to testify. See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing, 3/4/19, at
102-08. Additionally, both the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the
Commonwealth’s brief would have this Court find that the court’s cautionary
instruction cured any error with regard to Williams’ claim. See Trial Court
Opinion, 3/3/19, at 30; see also Appellee’s Brief, at 23-24. Nevertheless,
the court’s instruction failed to address Rule 806 in any material way—likely
as the result of the same misapprehension—and, therefore, was not curative.
See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/21/19, at 61-62; see also Commonwealth v.
Maloney, 365 A.2d 1237, 1241 (Pa. 1976) (“[A]dequate instructions under
some circumstances may cure error[.]”).
- 13 -
J-A26016-20
his name was mentioned except as it appeals to you in
proving the case against these defendants.
N.T. Jury Trial, 3/21/19, at 61-62 (emphasis added).
Williams argues that James’ testimony—that Olexovitch instructed
James to give the gun to Williams—bolstered the Commonwealth’s claim that
Williams possessed the illegally-purchased murder weapon. Williams argues
that the admission of this testimony ultimately helped prove the
Commonwealth’s homicide cases and the remaining charges for which the jury
convicted Williams. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11; see also Appellant’s Reply
Brief, at 1. We agree; but for the reasons stated below, we also find this error
to be harmless, beyond a reasonable doubt.
“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by
law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.” Pa.R.E. 402.
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Pa.R.E. 401. Moreover,
hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, though several exceptions allow
for its admission. One such exception, Pa.R.E. 806 (Attacking and Supporting
the Declarant’s Credibility), relevant here, provides:
When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the
declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by
any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the
declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit
evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct,
regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an
opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the
statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party
- 14 -
J-A26016-20
may examine the declarant on the statement as if on crossexamination.
Pa.R.E. 806.
Here, the trial court admitted Olexovitch’s hearsay statement, which
was related to the jury via Rayshaun James’ testimony. See N.T. Jury Trial,
3/12/19, 163-64. Although the Commonwealth made its evidentiary proffer
in support of a charge which the court ultimately dismissed (conspiracy to
commit sale or transfer of firearms), James’ retelling of Olexovitch’s statement
also had the effect of bolstering the evidence that supported the remaining
and still-pending charges. Thus, even if the conspiracy charge was no longer
at issue, because Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration bolstered the evidence
relating to the other still-pending charges, Olexovitch’s credibility was open to
attack by an inconsistent statement. See Pa.R.E. 806; see also
Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255, 288 (Pa. 2015) (“[Rule 806]
provid[es] for the admission of hearsay statements challenging the credibility
of the declarants of previously admitted hearsay statements.”).
Williams’ proposed admission of Detective Beidler’s testimony, that
Olexovitch denied instructing the delivery of a weapon to Williams, certainly
qualifies as an inconsistent statement when compared with James’ already-
admitted testimony. Detective Beidler’s proposed testimony was thus
admissible under the rule, even if deemed hearsay. See Walter, supra. The
court’s instruction to the jury, having failed to address this point, did not cure
the error. See n.12, supra. Nevertheless, we hold that the trial court’s
- 15 -
J-A26016-20
error—the denial of Williams’ motion to call Detective Beidler to the stand to
attack Olexovitch’s credibility, pursuant to Rule 806—was harmless.
Our Supreme Court has long held that:
although a perfectly conducted trial is indeed the ideal objective
of our judicial process, the defendant is not necessarily entitled to
relief simply because of some imperfections in the trial, so long as
he has been accorded a fair trial. A defendant is entitled to a fair
trial but not a perfect one. If a trial error does not deprive the
defendant of the fundamentals of a fair trial, his conviction will not
be reversed.
Commonwealth v. Noel, 104 A.3d 1156, 1169 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Wright,
961 A.2d 119, 135 (Pa. 2008)) (brackets and
quotation marks omitted). Where a trial court has erroneously failed to admit
evidence, we may find that no new trial is warranted if we are convinced the
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v.
French,
578 A.2d 1292, 1301 (Pa. Super. 1990). The Commonwealth carries
this burden. Commonwealth v. Adams,
39 A.3d 310, 322 (Pa. Super.
2012). Our Supreme Court has clarified that harmless error exists where
the record demonstrates either: (1) the error did not prejudice
the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the
erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other
untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the
erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and
uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the
prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison
that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.
Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671-72 (Pa. 2014).
Here, the Commonwealth argues that the prejudice to Williams was de
minimis and that the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of
- 16 -
J-A26016-20
Williams’ guilt was so overwhelming by comparison to the error, that it could
not have contributed to the verdict. See Appellee’s Brief, at 31-33. We agree.
At trial, numerous individuals testified that they saw Williams possess
the gun, discharge it, or both. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 178-79 (James
testified he walked “off camera” with Williams, handed Williams firearm, and
Williams placed it in waistband); id. at 203-07 (James testified he heard
gunshot, saw Williams place firearm in waistband again, and saw Williams
running with Skelton; James followed pair to rear yard where the three stayed
before proceeding to Skelton’s home); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/7/19, at 193-94
(Officer Dennis Leighton testified he observed pole video camera footage of
scene after shooting, showing Williams entered backyard of 703 Winder Drive,
waited approximately one minute before fleeing rear yard; police found
murder weapon hidden inside grill in rear yard.); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at
108-09 (Officer Edmund O’Brien testified as to observations of pole camera
video, “For [] Williams, as he was running from the 600 block to the 700 []
block [of Winder Drive], his right hand was observed on his right side right
around the belt loop area. . . . Coming out of [703 Winder Drive] he appears
to be running as normal.”); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 51-52 (Valentine
testified that he told detectives he “watched Joey Williams [shoot] Tommy
Ballard”), at 101 (“[Commonwealth Attorney:] And when he shot the gun you
knew his name was Joey Williams, correct? [Jackie Valentine:] Yes.
[Commonwealth Attorney:] And when he shot Tommy Ballard you knew his
name was Joey Williams, correct? [Jackie Valentine:] Yes.”); N.T. Jury Trial,
- 17 -
J-A26016-20
3/15/19, at 112-14 (April Coleman testified “I just know [Williams] stepped
back, and he pulled out the gun, and I heard pow. . . . He shot again. . . .
[Williams] shoots again, and then I lost view. I heard a third shot[.]”); N.T.
Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 105-07 (Krystalyn Coleman testified “[Williams] had a
gun in his hands [with it pointed forward and shot it] in the direction [Wilson]
was running from [sic]. . . . That’s when I see [Williams]. So I froze because,
I mean, I don’t want to run in front of the bullets. He’s shooting at him. I
don’t want to get hit, so I just stopped.”).
Here, we find the failure to admit Williams’ proposed impeachment
evidence was a de minimis error, especially when compared to the
overwhelming admitted evidence that supported findings that Williams
possessed and fired the murder weapon. See Hairston, supra. Additionally,
the Commonwealth correctly notes that once the court granted Williams’
demurrer as to the conspiracy charge, the importance of Olexovitch’s
testimony regarding the remaining charges was greatly minimized—the
manner in which Williams acquired the weapon had little significance in
answering the question of whether he murdered Ballard and McDuffie and
whether he intended to kill Wilson. See Appellee’s Brief, at 32. Further, other
evidence adduced at trial overwhelmingly supported Williams’ convictions: all
of the firsthand witness testimony regarding what transpired at the scene;
that Williams fled the scene; that he abandoned the shirt he wore at the time
of the shootings; and that he made incriminating statements at the time of
his arrest. See
Hairston, supra.
- 18 -
J-A26016-20
We find beyond a reasonable doubt that the properly admitted evidence
of Williams’ guilt was so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the court’s
error regarding the failure to admit the proposed impeachment evidence so
insignificant by comparison, that the error could not have contributed to the
verdict. Id.; see also Adams, supra. Accordingly, the trial court’s error did
not deprive Williams of the fundamentals of a fair trial.15 See
Noel, supra.
In his second and final issue on appeal, Williams claims the trial court
erroneously admitted a letter that he wrote to his cousin, William Flemming,
from prison, after his arrest. See Appellant’s Brief, at 17. Prior to trial,
several members of the audience wore matching t-shirts, demonstrating their
affiliation and solidarity with the parties. Some shirts bore images and
nicknames of witnesses the Commonwealth intended to call. The trial court
issued a warning that the trial would not be influenced in any manner,
including by the wearing of matching t-shirts or by intimidation. See N.T.
Pre-Trial Hearing, 3/4/19, at 61-66. Nevertheless, certain individuals failed
to follow the court’s instruction, wore matching shirts in support of Williams
to trial, and were subsequently admonished by the court. See N.T. Jury Trial,
3/6/19, at 117-30. Upon admonishment, Flemming and another individual
abandoned their shirts in the courtroom; the shirts were then placed in the
____________________________________________
15 We need not reach Williams’ Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
arguments, see Appellant’s Brief, at 12-14, given that any error we might find
would be subject to the same harmless error analysis. See Commonwealth
v. Brown, 139 A.3d 208, 219-20 (Pa. Super. 2016) (after finding
Confrontation Clause violation, this Court examines whether error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
- 19 -
J-A26016-20
Commonwealth’s custody. Flemming’s abandoned shirt had a silkscreen logo
that was identical to one found on the red shirt that Williams abandoned during
his flight from the crime scene, and was also the same as a hand-drawn image
found on the letter that Williams wrote to Flemming from prison. Moreover,
Flemming’s abandoned shirt included a variety of phrases including “#1300,”
which also appeared in the letter. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, 327-28.
The contents of Williams’ letter to Flemming were read aloud to the jury
and published on a monitor for viewing, but without the envelope indicating it
was sent from prison.16 See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, 313-17. Williams argues
____________________________________________
16 Detective Frank Groome’s testimony described the letter:
[By Commonwealth Attorney:] Taking a look at what’s on the
screen currently, if we could zoom in on the top left corner. The
name there is Joseph Williams; is that right?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And it’s addressed to William Flemming in Philadelphia;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That’s the name of the individual you saw wearing that red
shirt in court?
A. Yes.
Q. If we could scroll down. And we’re taking a look now at an
image that seems to be hand drawn. What is that image?
A. That’s an image similar to the silkscreen that was on the shirt.
…
- 20 -
J-A26016-20
____________________________________________
Q. [I]f we could actually [] focus on the bottom portion, the letter
portion where it begins, “Yo, Cuz.” This is the body of the letter
that was written and then encompassed in that envelope; correct?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. It says: “Yo, Cuz. I’m chillin. Just bored as shit. I had to
write yall or something. The detectives came and gave me a
mouth swab. I gotta beat this. I’m in it real rap bro. Make sure
yall doing what yall can for me, man[n.”] And there’s “[OSS]”;
right?
A. Yes.
…
Q. “It felt like niggas forgot about me. Keep it a bean, before all
this” –and then there’s something that appears to be cut off—
“shit. But imma be ARD, ten toes down. These crackers trippin.
My Pop-Pop name Jimmy. I stand tall no matter the outcome.
RS. This ain’t that. I’ll never sell my soul to them niggas, but my
bread gettin[”]—and then it just says “[OW].” It seems to be cut
off. “Im at a dub. Imma try to go a week without calling yall.
Make sure yall screaming for Joey on the social real rap. Fuck
that. But I love yall! Supposedly the lawyer I called coming to
see me this week, so I fuck around and call you then if you get to
the bottom of shit. I heard Kira, your baby again. Tell her I said
wassup lol. RD.” Correct?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And now, if we could focus on the top portion, and it says over
to the right: “Jordan told me draw something for his corney [sic]
ass designs he got on his shirts. Take a pic and send it to him.”
Is that what it says at the top?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. This is dated May 14th[, 2018]; correct?
A. Yes.
- 21 -
J-A26016-20
____________________________________________
Q. Underneath [] on the left-hand side it says: “Target,[”] then
[“shoota[”], [“]mood[”], [“song”], [“]artist.” On the right-hand
side it had a number of hashtags.
A. Yes.
Q. Under where [sic] it indicates [“]target[”], [is written] “[B.A.M
SNM].” Do you know what that’s a reference to?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Below that, it says “Shoota,” [] correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it says: “Joey twin [IAMAL”]; is that fair?
A. Yes.
Q. Below that, “Mood - Fall[i]n Back,” and below that: [“Song -
MoneyBag Myers”]?
A. Correct.
Q. The [“Artist - MoneyBag Yo”]; correct?
A. Correct, ma’am.
Q. On the right it says, [] “[#]unbreakable,” below that []
“[#]1300!” [], “P-20[-]Vill.” Do you know what the reference of
1300 is?
A. I do not know what 1300 is. Vill would be [Winder] Village.
Q. Below that it says, “[#OTF-FTO],” and then [] “[#]solid,” with
what appears to be [a hand-drawn image of] a strong arm;
correct?
A. Solid, I’ve seen that before. It usually means solid, stay
strong.
Q. Okay. Did you have an opportunity to do research and
determine what that song is, the MoneyBagg Myers song?
A. Yeah, I pulled the lyrics up, and I looked at the lyrics.
- 22 -
J-A26016-20
that, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 403, the letter’s probative value was outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.
Appellant’s Brief, at 18. Specifically, Williams argues that the letter “did
nothing to prove [Williams] killed anyone on May 4, 2018,” that the letter
“portrays its writer as a filthy[-]mouthed but scared young man hoping for
some support from friends and neighbors,” and was a “racially charged piece
of evidence at the trial of a black man for a crime committed in a black
neighborhood” that was “unfairly inflammatory and of no relevance to the
issues at hand.” Id. at 18-19. Finally, Williams claims he deserves a new
trial and that “[t]his Court should send a message to trial courts that evidence
that needlessly racially stereotypes a criminal defendant, when not absolutely
necessary to prove some point at trial, cannot be viewed by the finder of fact
upon pain of reversal[.]” Id. at 20.
____________________________________________
…
Q. And looking from the left—and of course [Williams’ letter to
Flemming] will speak for itself—on the fourth one down, there’s a
[hand-drawn] musical note or a clef sign. To the right of that is[:]
[“]Song[-]MoneyBag Myers,[”] and below that, [“]Artist[-
]MoneyBag Yo.[”] And you say you have the lyrics of that song?
A. Yes, sir.
[Whereupon copies of the song’s lyrics were distributed and
published to each member of the jury and the song was played in
court.]
N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 313-19.
- 23 -
J-A26016-20
As noted above, all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise
provided by law, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Pa.R.E. 402. One
noted exception is found in Rule 403, which states “[t]he court may exclude
relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or
more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the
jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.
Our Supreme Court has explained that all evidence is necessarily
prejudicial:
Probative value and prejudice are conjoined in the sense that if
evidence is probative at all, it is necessarily prejudicial to one side
or the other—if evidence has no probative value, it ought not be
admitted in the first place, and this can usually be determined
before trial. The balancing inquiry, however, is a fact- and
context-specific one that is normally dependent on the evidence
actually presented at trial. The value of evidence is obviously a
fluid notion, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence is likewise
in flux as matters progress.
Commonwealth v. Hicks, 91 A.3d 47, 53-54 (Pa. 2014).
Here, Williams argued a mistaken-identity defense throughout trial and
in closing argument. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 155-56. Contrary to
Williams’ claims, we find that the letter he wrote was clearly probative of his
identity as the shooter insofar as the letter, penned by his hand, states
“Shoota – Joey Twin IAMAL” next to the hand-drawn image of a gun and
underneath the words “Target – B.A.M SNM.” Moreover, a hand-drawn
illustration found on the letter matched an image that was observed on the
red shirt worn by Williams during the shooting—the same shirt Williams
- 24 -
J-A26016-20
abandoned at the Skelton residence in an attempt to hide his identity as the
shooter—when he fled the scene and hid the firearm in the grill behind 703
Winder Drive. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/7/19, at 175; N.T Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at
277-80, 286, 312-13, 324. This same image also appeared on the later-
abandoned shirt worn by Flemming at Williams’ trial.
Additionally, Williams fails to identify what specific language or content
in the letter unduly prejudiced him. Although there is some use of profanity
and racial slurs, we agree with the Commonwealth that the true focus of the
letter is on providing an update on his case, noting Williams’ belief that he will
be acquitted of the charges, and requesting continued support. We discern
no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to admit the letter as highly
probative evidence of Williams’ identity as the shooter. See McClure, supra.
Finally, we note that any unfair prejudice was mitigated by the court’s proper
cautionary instruction to the jury regarding how the letter should be
appropriately considered.17 See Commonwealth v. Jemison,
98 A.3d 1254,
____________________________________________
17 The court cautioned the jury as follows:
I want to address another matter with you. Yesterday we had
Detective Frank Groome testify as a witness[. P]rior to his
testimony you saw some evidence, a red T-shirt. Detective
Groome highlighted the fact that [t]his T-shirt, which was found
in a trash can, allegedly had a specific unique type of silkscreen
logo on the front. You were made aware of that, and we also saw
it as an exhibit.
There was a letter that was written by this [d]efendant, Joseph
Williams, and of that there is no dispute. You can accept that.
- 25 -
J-A26016-20
____________________________________________
And it has on it what appears to be a handwritten logo similar to
the logo that is silkscreened on the T-shirt. Whether it is or not is
a fact for you, but that’s my view of why the Commonwealth
sought to introduce it. I believe, and they will argue if they
choose, that that somehow establishes the identity of the
owner of the T-shirt to [sic] Joseph Williams. But again, it’s
for you to determine if that has been proven, and if, in fact,
it is an important issue. In the end, what is important is a
decision for you and you alone. You determine the weight to be
given any evidence, and I’ll discuss that with you at the end of the
case.
Having said that, in that letter there was a reference to a rap song.
The Commonwealth will argue that this again establishes the
identity of the writer of the letter and is connected to the
T-shirt, but again, I’m not saying it’s so; only what I believe the
Commonwealth will argue. I permitted the playing of this rap song
for you, and the Commonwealth provided two pages of lyrics for
that song. Now, it is nothing more than a rap song, and I would
not want you to think that it had any special value or evidentiary
importance in and of itself. It is clear that [Williams] did not write
this song. He only referred to it in a letter, which apparently
bears the same logo as the T-shirt.
I’ll be candid with all of you. We are all adults. This song is
somewhat graphic in some measure, but it has no implications
whatsoever as to the ultimate issue in this case, which is, has the
Commonwealth proven beyond a reasonable doubt each and
every element of every crime charged as against [] Joseph
Williams, and [] Gary Goddard. The song, without more, is just
one of many pieces of evidence you’ll consider, but it has a limited
purpose, and I didn’t want you to draw the inference that this song
proves anything. It certainly does not stand alone, just a part and
parcel of[,] and it absolutely does not implicate, in any fashion, in
any of these crimes, either Mr. Williams or Mr. Goddard, and I
would not want you to think that it did.
So having told you that, it is only offered for a limited purpose. In
the end, whether or not it has evidentiary value for you will be
determined, but I can tell you now, and I can’t stress it enough,
Mr. Williams did not write this song. No one is suggesting he
endorses any of the things said in the lyrics, and it
- 26 -
J-A26016-20
1263 (Pa. 2014) (“Any possibility of unfair prejudice is greatly mitigated by
the use of proper cautionary instructions to the jury.”). The jury is presumed
to have followed the court’s instructions. Id. Therefore, Williams’ second
claim on appeal fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/26/2021
____________________________________________
absolutely has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he
is guilty of all, any, or none of these crimes. I just wanted
you to know that.
N.T. Jury Trial, 3/19/19, at 11-14 (emphasis added).
- 27 -
