Com. v. Naill, B., Com. v. Naill, B. No. 916 WDA 2016

On Dec. 16, 2014, an attempted ATM theft occurred; surveillance identified a vehicle later traced to Appellant Billy Ray Naill, who was arrested.
Commonwealth charged Naill with criminal mischief, conspiracy to commit criminal mischief, criminal attempt–theft, loitering/prowling at night, and conspiracy to commit unauthorized use of a vehicle.
Four days before trial, defense learned the Commonwealth intended to call Naill’s former cellmate (Joseph Bockes) to testify about inculpatory statements; defense counsel sought to contact the prosecutor and then raised the issue in court.
The Commonwealth agreed not to call Bockes or refer to him; defense counsel accepted that remedy and did not request a continuance.
Jury convicted Naill on Jan. 6, 2016; he was sentenced to 18–60 months on Jan. 25, 2016. Post‑sentence motions and appeal asserted discovery and mistrial errors; trial court and Superior Court affirmed.
Trial court also addressed accidental provision of excluded exhibits and contempt‑hearing transcripts to the jury during deliberations and found any error harmless because jurors did not read them and the content was duplicative of admitted testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Naill)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance for late disclosure of inculpatory statement	N/A — Commonwealth cured by withdrawing witness and not using statement	Discovery violation prejudiced Naill; continuance or mistrial required	No abuse; defense counsel accepted remedy and never requested continuance; no continuance denied
Whether denial of mistrial for late discovery violated right to fair trial	N/A	Mistrial required due to Commonwealth’s failure to disclose Bockes statement	No error; Naill never moved for mistrial on that basis and failed to show prejudice
Whether providing excluded exhibits/transcripts to jury required mistrial	Commonwealth: inadvertent, harmless because jurors did not read and content was duplicative	Exposure to excluded materials prejudiced deliberations and required new trial	No mistrial; foreperson said jurors did not read the items, and materials duplicated trial testimony; error harmless
Whether prosecutorial misconduct / weight of the evidence justify new trial	N/A	Prosecutor manipulated documents/mail and testimony; verdict against weight	Claims waived or unsupported: pro se allegations not entertained; weight claim not preserved; no evidence of prejudice

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for continuance denials)
Commonwealth v. Tejeda, 834 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for mistrial review)
Commonwealth v. Manchas, 633 A.2d 618 (Pa. Super. 1993) (discovery rules meant to prevent trial by ambush)
Commonwealth v. Galloway, 771 A.2d 65 (Pa. Super. 2001) (trial court has broad remedial discretion under Pa.R.Crim.P. 573)
Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellant must show prejudice from discovery violation)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 654 A.2d 1062 (Pa. Super. 1994) (cannot order new trial on mere hunch of undisclosed beneficial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Hudgens, 582 A.2d 1352 (Pa. Super. 1990) (same)
Flenke v. Huntington, 111 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2015) (harmless error analysis)
Zenak v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia, 132 A.3d 541 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016) (harmless error precedent)
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 626 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 1993) (no right to hybrid representation)
Kaufman v. Campos, 827 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2003) (waiver for failure to timely object)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2012) (preservation rules for weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235 (Pa. 2011) (same)