Com. v. Brokenborough, S. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A26009-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SALIM D. BROKENBOROUGH, Appellant No. 1875 MDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered August 4, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001775-2010 BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and FITZGERALD,* JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2013 Appellant, Salim D. Brokenborough, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on August 4, 2011, as made final by the denial of postsentence motions on October 6, 2011, following his jury trial convictions for corrupt organizations, criminal conspiracy, criminal use of a communication facility, and three counts of delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance.1 Based upon our published decision in Commonwealth v. Huggins, 2013 PA Super --, we affirm. On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue2 for our review: ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 911, 903, 7512, and 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(30), respectively. 2 We note that, in his appellate brief, Appellant has not presented his second claim as set forth in his concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). An appellate court will not undertake review of issues an appellant (Footnote Continued Next Page) *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A26009-12 Whether the trial court improperly allowed the affiant to testify in the dual role of case agent and expert witness[?] Appellant s Brief at 4 (complete capitalization omitted). Our decision in Huggins is dispositive. Appellant was one of Huggins co-conspirators. On appeal, Huggins presented the identical issue as presented herein. In Huggins, we determined that the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence do not preclude a single witness from testifying as both a lay witness and an expert; however, we cautioned that the trial court s gatekeeping functions were imperative. Therein, we ultimately determined the trial court took significant steps to minimize any juror confusion. jury received multiple cautionary instructions throughout trial. The The trial court specifically directed the Commonwealth to delineate between Agent David Carolina s expert and fact-based opinions, which it did. Finally, defense counsel was permitted to engage in rigorous cross-examination of Agent Carolina regarding his expertise and the substance of his testimony. Hence, we rejected Huggins assertion that Agent Carolina s testimony in dual capacities usurped the jury s fact-finding. As our decision in Huggins is directly on point, we rely on it in denying Appellant relief. Judgment of sentence affirmed. (Footnote Continued) _______________________ abandons on appeal. Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 72 (Pa. 2011). Hence, Appellant has waived his sentencing claim. -2- J-A26009-12 Judgment Entered. Deputy Prothonotary Date: 5/8/2013 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
