Com. v. Broomall, R. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S32030-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RANDY HARRY BROOMALL, JR. Appellant No. 2362 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed June 2, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No: CP-23-CR-0006895-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2017 Appellant, Randy Harry Broomall, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on June 2, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, following Appellant’s convictions of criminal conspiracy— possession with intent to deliver; possession of a controlled substance— Oxycodone, Alprazolam; possession of drug paraphernalia; possession with intent to deliver—cocaine; and possession with intent to deliver—heroin.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his guilty verdicts and claims trial court erred in permitting a Commonwealth drug ____________________________________________ * 1 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 18 Pa.C.S.A § 903; 35 P.S. §§780-113(a)16, 113(a)32, 113(a)30, and 113(a)30, respectively. J-S32030-17 investigations expert to respond to questions about fingerprinting evidence. Following review, we affirm. Appellant was charged with the above-enumerated offenses after drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered during a raid on a trailer owned and occupied by his mother, Commonwealth witness Anna Owens (“Owens”). Owens explained that Appellant did not reside with her but was present at the trailer on a daily basis and kept some personal items there, including a safe that was retrieved from the trailer in response to a search warrant. The trial court aptly and thoroughly summarized both the factual history and procedural history of the case. Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/16, 27. We hereby adopt the trial court summaries as our own and incorporate them herein as if fully set forth. For our purposes, it is sufficient to reiterate that Appellant was convicted of all the charges listed above and was subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 to 36 years in prison, followed by four years of state probation. In this timely appeal from the judgment of sentence, Appellant asks us to consider three issues, which he phrases as declaratory statements as follows: 1. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth relied on the testimony of Anna Owens to provide inculpatory information about the criminal conduct of [Appellant]. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other witness and the jury needed to rely on the testimony of Anna Owens as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] conspired with Anna Owens to possess the controlled substances found in the -2- J-S32030-17 home. This Commonwealth witness did not provide credible and believable testimony to support the jury’s finding even when her testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. Owens denied that she was an accomplice or a co-conspirator of [Appellant]. Nothing in the record of the trial in this case supports the decision of the jury to find that [Appellant] conspired with Anna Owens to possess heroin or cocaine with the intent to deliver.[2] 2. The learned court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to question witness Sergeant Kenneth Rutherford, Jr. as an expert about fingerprint evidence. The witness was qualified as an expert in the fields of drugs and drug investigation. By his own admission, Sergeant Rutherford acknowledged that he is not a fingerprint expert. 3. The Appellant raises one issue concerning the sentence imposed by the trial court. a. The record is devoid of any evidence the defendant engaged in a conspiracy with Anna Owens and the sentence imposed for Conspiracy to Possession with intent to deliver must be vacated. Appellant’s Brief, Statement of the Questions Involved, at 3. Appellant’s first and third issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support Appellant’s convictions. After outlining the correct standard of review for a sufficiency challenge, the trial court explained the elements of conspiracy and the elements of possession with intent to deliver. The court then embarked upon a comprehensive review of the evidence presented at trial and concluded the Commonwealth offered evidence sufficient to enable the jury to find every material element of the crimes ____________________________________________ 2 We note that Owens entered a guilty plea to a conspiracy charge. The jury was apprised of that fact. See Notes of Testimony, 4/13/16, at 219-22. -3- J-S32030-17 charged and that Appellant committed those crimes. Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/16, at 7-17, 22. Our review of the record confirms the trial court’s evidentiary findings and legal determinations regarding sufficiency. Therefore, we hereby adopt as our own and incorporate herein by reference the trial court’s disposition of Appellant’s first and third issues.3 In his second issue, Appellant argues trial court error relating to questions asked of the Commonwealth’s drugs and drug investigations expert. Specifically, Appellant complains that the trial court permitted questioning of the expert, over objection, in the area of fingerprint evidence. Appellant’s argument lacks merit. First, with regard to Appellant’s alleged “objection,” the objection was not timely made. fingerprint The transcript reveals that Appellant first objected to evidence testimony during the Commonwealth’s redirect examination of the expert. The record reflects the following exchange: ____________________________________________ 3 We further note that the focus of the sufficiency argument in Appellant’s brief is the conduct of Owens rather than the conduct of Appellant. In essence, Appellant is challenging the credibility of Owens’ testimony, testimony the jury was free to believe or disbelieve. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009). -4- J-S32030-17 [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: At this point, I want to object. We just got over him saying his role here is to say whether these drugs are dealt – are to deal or to not to deal. Now we’re getting into the points on fingerprints. THE COURT: Well, you cross examined him on it. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: I did because he offered it on direct. THE COURT: Well, overruled. [APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay. THE COURT: If it’s an objection, it’s overruled. Notes of Testimony, 4/14/16, at 158-59. As the trial court determined, “Appellant failed to preserve this claim for appeal as he did not object to the witness’ statements at trial and raises this argument for the first time on appeal. . . . Accordingly, this argument is waived.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/16, at 18. Second, as the trial court concluded, the expert did not offer any expert opinions regarding fingerprint evidence. Rather, he simply explained that fingerprinting the bags of heroin in a case such as Appellant’s—involving more than 900 bags of drugs—was not his normal practice, that it was timeconsuming, and that it was not “really feasible.” Notes of Testimony, 4/14/16, at 147-48. Therefore, even if not waived, Appellant’s second issue fails for lack of merit. We hereby adopt as our own and incorporate herein by reference the trial court’s disposition of Appellant’s second issue. Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/16, at 17-20. In the event of further proceedings, the -5- J-S32030-17 parties shall attach a copy of the trial court’s November 21, 2016 opinion to their filings. Judgment affirmed. In the event of further proceedings, the parties shall attach a copy of the trial court’s November 21, 2016 opinion to their filings. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/18/2017 -6- Circulated 06/29/2017 11:14 AM
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.
