Com. v. Kraidman, B., Com. v. Kraidman, B. No. 713 EDA 2016

Appellant Brian Kraidman was general manager of Krapf Coaches’ Rover division, which collected pre-set fares subsidized by PennDOT; drivers logged fares and placed cash/checks and reconciliation slips into secured drop safes.
As general manager, Kraidman had exclusive access to fare reconciliations and stored sorted cash in his office; an auditor later found approximately $78,000 in missing deposits for the Rover program.
Between April 2013 and September 2014, Kraidman’s ex-wife maintained a spreadsheet showing over $120,000 in cash deposits into their joint account; Krapf’s records and Kraidman’s reported salary did not account for that amount.
Kraidman was convicted after a jury trial of theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, and receiving stolen property; he was sentenced to 11.5–23 months’ incarceration plus eight years’ probation.
On appeal, Kraidman raised (1) sufficiency of the evidence (challenging circumstantial proof and others’ access to funds) and (2) denial of due process by limiting cross-examination of his ex-wife about bank reporting and tax reporting of large cash deposits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Kraidman)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for theft and receiving stolen property	Evidence (reconciliations, missing deposits, cash flow, ex-wife’s spreadsheet) proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Circumstantial proof insufficient; others had access to funds; 1925(b) statement preserved the claim	Waived for appeal: 1925(b) statement was boilerplate and failed to specify elements; claim not considered on merits
Exclusion of cross-examination re: bank reporting/tax reporting by ex-wife	Questions were irrelevant and would be marginally probative; trial court properly limited scope	Cross-examining about failure to file bank or tax forms would impeach credibility/bias and was constitutionally protected	No abuse of discretion: limitation was reasonable, not prejudicial under Van Arsdall; impeachment opportunities existed via other testimony

Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (clarifies Rule 1925(b) specificity for sufficiency claims)
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (1925(b) boilerplate statements result in waiver)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (1925(b) specificity requirement explained)
Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (Confrontation Clause and cross-examination principles)
Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. 2016) (limits on cross-examination; Van Arsdall framework applied)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (two-step inquiry for confrontation-clause exclusion error)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited scope)
Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (trial court discretion over scope of cross-examination)
Commonwealth v. McGowan, 635 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1993) (relevance requirement for admission of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Lobel, 440 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 1982) (limits on cross-examiner to matters relevant or showing bias)