Com. v. Cordero, M., 3319 EDA 2016

On Sept. 13, 2013, Matthew Cordero and Krista McDevitt conspired to lure McDevitt’s former boyfriend, Joseph Britton, to Frankford, Philadelphia, intending to rob him.
McDevitt lured Britton; Cordero approached Britton sitting in a borrowed car and struck him 3–4 times in head/neck with an aluminum baseball bat, killing him instantly.
After the attack Cordero searched Britton’s pockets and the car, took a car key and $1, and later boasted about the killing and warned others not to report him.
At trial the Commonwealth presented testimony from McDevitt, a roommate who lent the car, a friend who lent the bat and aided the search, a juvenile witness who gave inconsistent statements, law enforcement, and the medical examiner.
During closing argument the prosecutor struck a cardboard box with a baseball bat to demonstrate force; defense moved for a mistrial and was denied. Jury convicted Cordero of first-degree murder, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and PIC; sentenced to life without parole for murder.
On appeal Cordero challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence (identity, intent, conspiracy, robbery, PIC), and (2) denial of mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct based on the bat demonstration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Cordero)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions (murder, robbery, conspiracy, PIC)	Evidence (eyewitness testimony, accomplice testimony, medical examiner, post-crime conduct) supports intent, identity, conspiracy, robbery, and possession of instrument	Insufficient proof of identity and specific intent to kill; testimony unreliable/tainted; at most heat-of-passion manslaughter	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, jury could infer premeditation/malice, conspiracy and robbery; sufficiency claim fails; voluntary manslaughter theory waived for failure to preserve
Motion for mistrial based on prosecutor striking box with bat during closing (prosecutorial misconduct)	Demonstration was a permissible rhetorical/visual aid tied to evidence (bat blows, wounds) and reasonable inference; closing not evidence and jury instructed accordingly	Demonstration was prejudicial, introduced evidence not in record, appealed to prejudice and should have warranted mistrial	Affirmed. Demonstration bore reasonable relation to trial evidence; no unavoidable prejudice shown; similar precedent supports denial

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 157 A.3d 508 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (credibility challenges go to weight, not sufficiency)
Commonwealth v. Sneed, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter elements)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prosecutor’s bat demonstration during closing was not reversible error where it related to the evidence)