Com. v. Felder, H., 247 A.3d 14

On Dec. 30, 2017, Officers Michael Schmidt and Marc Marchetti observed Hakiem Felder reach toward his waistband, heard a metallic sound, and recovered a loaded handgun; Felder was arrested and later convicted (non-jury) of three firearm offenses.
After conviction but before sentencing, the Commonwealth discovered two 2018 judicial decisions in unrelated cases finding Officer Schmidt (and a partner) had given incredible testimony.
The Commonwealth disclosed those decisions to Felder, who moved for extraordinary relief/new trial under Pa. R. Crim. P. 704(B) as after-discovered evidence.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding the new records: (1) could have been discovered earlier; (2) would be used solely to impeach Officer Schmidt; and (3) would not change the verdict because Officer Marchetti’s testimony alone supported conviction.
Felder appealed; he did not raise or preserve a Brady claim in his 1925(b) statement or brief. The Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the Brady/non‑disclosure issue was waived.

Issue	Felder's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial court should grant a new trial based on after-discovered evidence (2018 adverse credibility findings about Officer Schmidt)	The judicial findings showing Schmidt as non‑credible are new, material, and would likely produce a different verdict; trial court abused discretion by denying relief.	The records only impeach credibility, could have been discovered earlier, and would not change the outcome because Officer Marchetti’s testimony independently supports the conviction.	Denied. Trial court did not abuse its discretion: evidence was impeachment‑only and would not likely alter the verdict.
Whether Commonwealth’s nondisclosure of the 2018 decisions (Brady violation) requires reversal	(Implicit) Nondisclosure of exculpatory/impeachment material warrants new trial under Brady.	Commonwealth acknowledged nondisclosure but argued it did not justify a new trial on these facts.	Waived on appeal by Felder; Superior Court did not reach Brady merits.

Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four‑prong test for after‑discovered evidence)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (scope of appellate review when trial court states reasons for new‑trial decision)
Simmons-Boardman Pub. Co. v. Am. Boron Prod. Co., 128 A. 511 (Pa. 1925) (after‑discovered evidence presents discretionary question for trial court)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 215 A.3d 1019 (Pa. Super. 2019) (limited exception where impeachment evidence can require a new trial)
Commonwealth v. McCracken, 659 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1995) (recantation/impeachment scenarios affecting retrial analysis)
Commonwealth v. Clair, 326 A.2d 272 (Pa. 1974) (limits on raising undeveloped issues on direct appeal)