Com. v. Cottrell, W., Com. v. Cottrell, W. No. 3210 EDA 2016

At ~2:00 a.m. on June 16, 2012, an individual wearing a dark hood, dark baseball cap, and bandana robbed Fox and Willie Mae McClure at gunpoint in their Bristol Township home, struck Mr. McClure, and forced Mrs. McClure to open a safe containing collectible coins.
Victims saw the robber’s general physical characteristics (Black male, ~5'10"–6'2", thin/medium build) and reported his flight direction; Mrs. McClure saw a laser from the gun and contemporaneously reported the escape route to 911.
Around 2:18–2:30 a.m., Officer Bertram and his K9 tracked near the turnpike/Beaver Dam Road area; the Hills (nearby neighbors) encountered a Black man in their backyard who offered money not to report him and later found a dark hooded sweatshirt and a navy Yankees cap under their pool deck.
A bandana recovered inside the sweatshirt and the Yankees cap were DNA-tested; forensic analysis produced a full profile on the cap and a partial profile on the bandana, both matching Appellant’s DNA sample with extremely low random-match probabilities reported.
Appellant (Cottrell) testified, denied the robbery, admitted he often wore Yankees caps, denied owning a bandana, and offered no alibi; he was convicted by a jury of burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, and four counts of robbery and sentenced to an aggregate 7–20 years’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to identify Appellant as the robber	Commonwealth: DNA on cap and bandana recovered near the robber’s flight path, victim descriptions, tracking evidence, and witness encounters sufficiently link Appellant to the crime	Cottrell: Witness descriptions varied; clothes bearing his DNA were found a half-mile away and descriptions differ — evidence insufficient to prove he was the robber beyond a reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, combined circumstantial and forensic evidence permitted jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and role of circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (appellate review framework for credibility and weight-of-evidence challenges)