Com. v. Ramsey, E.
2198 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- On June 3, 2013, a man handed a demand note to bank teller Luciano DiCesare at Mid Penn Bank and obtained $550; DiCesare later identified Edward Ramsey at trial as the robber.
- Police recovered a latent fingerprint on an interior exterior door and submitted it, plus the demand note, to the PSP Crime Lab.
- PSP examiners: Trooper Petti concluded the latent fingerprint matched Ramsey; Lt. Sandra Miller concluded the handwriting on the note "probably" matched Ramsey on a 9‑point opinion scale.
- Investigators corroborated leads from the note (impressed writing) to trucking records tying Ramsey to trailer numbers and obtained clothing matching the security video.
- Ramsey was convicted by jury of robbery (threat of immediate serious bodily injury) and sentenced to 60–120 months; he appealed arguing (1) improper admission of handwriting‑expert testimony and (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ramsey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of handwriting‑expert testimony | Expert Miller was qualified; her opinion that Ramsey "probably" wrote the note was based on accepted methodology and probative of who presented the note. | Miller could "give no conclusive opinion," so testimony was speculative, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial under Pa.R.E. 702, 402, 403. | Court admitted Miller as an expert and allowed the opinion; her methodology, training, use of a 9‑point scale, and peer review satisfied Rule 702 and relevance balancing. |
| Weight of the evidence (new trial) | Commonwealth: fingerprint match, teller's firsthand ID, video and investigative corroboration support verdict; conflicts are for jury. | Verdict shocks conscience because ID was allegedly tainted by a bank email/photo, fingerprint expert could not date the print, and handwriting expert was inconclusive. | Court denied new trial. Credibility and conflicts were for the jury; absence of temporal dating of the print did not render evidence insufficient or so contrary as to shock justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (guidance on weight-of-the-evidence analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sufficiency concession in weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Baez, 720 A.2d 711 (Pa. 1998) (substance over "magic words" for expert certainty)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (same principle re: expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014) (expert admissibility framework under Pa.R.E. 702)
- Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (abuse of discretion explained)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 854 A.2d 465 (Pa. 2004) (Rule 702 standards)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (prejudice vs. probative value balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Weathers, 95 A.3d 908 (Pa. Super. 2014) (weight-of-the-evidence review is highly deferential)
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (trial court discretion on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Rosette, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defendant concedes sufficiency when seeking new trial on weight grounds)