Com. v. Talley, Q., 1917 MDA 2015

Quintez Talley, an inmate at SCI Benner Township, was charged with two counts of aggravated harassment by a prisoner for two separate incidents (June 5 and June 18, 2014) in which he allegedly threw urine on Correctional Officers Suchta and Hewitt.
Incidents involved different victims, occurred on different dates, and were captured on surveillance video; an eyewitness (CO Lykens) observed and heard Talley taunt the officers.
Forensic testing produced presumptive positive results for urine on the officers’ clothing; Commonwealth presented video, eyewitness, victim testimony, and expert forensic testimony.
Talley proceeded largely pro se with standby counsel, refused to participate at pretrial motions hearing, and voluntarily absented himself during trial; the jury convicted him on both counts after 13 minutes of deliberation.
Trial court denied Talley’s motions including severance and a motion in limine to exclude a racial epithet Talley allegedly used; court imposed aggregate sentence of 4.5 to 9 years.
On appeal Talley argued (1) improper joinder/denial of severance, (2) erroneous admission of racial-epithet evidence, and (3) insufficient evidence / weight of the evidence. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Talley)	Held
Joinder / Motion to sever	Joinder proper because each incident is admissible in the other trial to show intent/absence of mistake; incidents are separable and not confusing	Severance required because presenting two similar allegations to same jury unduly prejudices Talley	Denial affirmed: evidence admissible for non-character purpose, incidents distinct in time/victims, no unfair prejudice
Motion in limine to exclude racial epithet	Admission relevant and not unduly prejudicial given overwhelming other evidence	Admission unfairly prejudicial before an "all-white jury" and would inflame bias	Denial affirmed: epithet’s probative value not outweighed by unfair prejudice given strength of case
Sufficiency of evidence that substance was urine	Evidence suffices: victim smell ID, eyewitness observation and statements, surveillance video, and forensic presumptive testing	Commonwealth failed to prove substance was urine beyond reasonable doubt; presumptive test unreliable	Sufficiency affirmed: combined evidence permitted conviction; challenge waived in part for not preserved below
Weight of the evidence	Verdict supported by credible, corroborating evidence; trial court properly exercised discretion	Verdict was against weight and shocked the conscience	Denial of weight claim affirmed: no palpable abuse of discretion; verdict did not shock judicial conscience

Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for severance and prejudice analysis)
Commonwealth v. Boyle, 733 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 1999) (three-part test for admissibility and joinder)
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2008) (limits on evidence of other crimes to prove character)
Commonwealth v. Russell, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007) (admission of other acts for intent/absence of mistake)
Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (jury can separate evidence of distinct offenses)
Commonwealth v. Newman, 598 A.2d 275 (Pa. 1991) (Rule 583 prejudice explained)
Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for motions in limine/evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinction between sufficiency and weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (trial court’s role on weight claims; appellate scope)
Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. 2004) (description of verdicts that shock the conscience)
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for reversing on weight grounds)