Com. v. Bodden, E., 2085 MDA 2015

Defendant Elswart R. Bodden broke into Annika Horn’s apartment on September 7, 2014, repeatedly stabbed her (≈25 times), and stole a handgun, purse, and change jar; the victim survived after multiple surgeries.
Police observed a fleeing Honda registered to Defendant’s girlfriend; investigators later recovered the stolen gun, the girlfriend’s phone/charger at the scene, a cigarette pack and cigarette butt with Defendant’s fingerprints/DNA, and victim’s blood/DNA on clothing hidden in a friend’s house.
Defendant was arrested with scratches and lacerations consistent with a knife attack; he admitted breaking in and stealing items and admitted fleeing the scene.
After jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, theft, and related charges; initial aggregate sentence announced (27.5–75 years) was later increased on resentencing to 37.5–95 years to correct an error in statutory maximum calculation.
On appeal Defendant raised four issues: (1) suppression of custodial statements (withdrawn below), (2) admissibility of photographs of victim’s wounds, (3) denial of funds for an eyewitness-identification expert, and (4) alleged vindictive resentencing/double jeopardy violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Suppression of statements	Commonwealth: suppression motion was withdrawn below; no preserved issue	Bodden: challenges admissibility of custodial statements	Waived — defendant withdrew suppression motion; appellate review barred under Pa.R.A.P. 302.
2. Admission of hospital/wound photographs	Commonwealth: photos are probative of force, injuries, and intent to kill	Bodden: photographs are unduly prejudicial and should be excluded	Admissible — court balanced probative value vs. prejudice under Buehl and allowed limited, few b/w photos; no abuse of discretion.
3. Funding for eyewitness-identification expert	Commonwealth: Walker permits expert testimony in limited cases; here ample non-eyewitness evidence links defendant	Bodden: needed expert to challenge victim’s identification reliability	Denied — Walker does not create an absolute right; expert unnecessary because prosecution’s case wasn’t solely or primarily dependent on eyewitness ID.
4. Resentencing; double jeopardy / vindictiveness	Commonwealth: moved to correct sentencing error; court may modify its sentence on motion	Bodden: increase to 20–40 yrs on Count 1 violated double jeopardy / was vindictive	Affirmed — resentencing to reflect court’s clear original intent and correct PSI error was permissible; no presumption of vindictiveness when court acts on Commonwealth’s motion; no double jeopardy.

Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (permits eyewitness-identification expert testimony in limited cases where prosecution relies primarily on eyewitness ID)
Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (trial court discretion governs appointment and funding of expert witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Speight, 854 A.2d 450 (Pa. 2004) (no presumption of vindictiveness where court increases sentence after Commonwealth's reconsideration motion)
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (Double Jeopardy does not bar post‑sentencing increases during resentencing/reconsideration procedures)
Commonwealth v. Kunish, 602 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 1992) (resentencing to reflect court's intended sentence permissible to correct errors)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 450 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1982) (purpose of post‑sentence motions is to permit the court to reconsider and correct sentencing errors)
Commonwealth v. Buehl, 508 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1986) (two‑step test for admissibility of inflammatory photographic evidence)