Com. v. Velez, J., 815 EDA 2024

Janae Marie Velez was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of an instrument of a crime after she shot Tiara Speights three times during a confrontation at Velez's home in Philadelphia.
Velez admitted to shooting Speights but claimed she acted in self-defense, asserting that she feared Speights, who was known to carry firearms and had a prior firearm incident.
The confrontation involved three women (Velez, Speights, and Rush), with complex personal relationships including prior infidelity and allegations of past violence.
The trial court excluded some evidence Velez wanted to introduce regarding Speights’ character and specific prior acts, including a Facebook post and details of a 2019 shooting incident.
The jury convicted Velez specifically for the third shot, finding the first two were likely self-defense, as reflected in their deliberative questions.
Velez appealed, challenging the exclusion of evidence and arguing the verdict went against the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of Facebook post	Velez argued it showed her fear was reasonable because Speights publicly flaunted her willingness to use guns.	Commonwealth argued its probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect; other admitted evidence sufficed.	Exclusion was not error or was harmless.
Exclusion of prior incident conversation	Velez wanted to testify Speights bragged about shooting at family, showing propensity for violence and her own fear.	Commonwealth argued details were collateral and risked jury confusion; trial court allowed limited evidence in.	Exclusion was proper or harmless error.
Weight of the evidence	Velez argued the jury’s verdict was unsupported by evidence; testimony against her was contradictory and fabricated.	Commonwealth contended the jury was entitled to assess credibility and evidence did not shock the conscience.	Verdict not against weight; no abuse found.

Commonwealth v. Dillon, 598 A.2d 963 (Pa. 1991) (self-defense claim allows introduction of specific violent acts of victim)
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2001) (outlines self-defense elements and Commonwealth's burden to disprove beyond reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (harmless error standard on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standards for harmless error)
Commonwealth v. Clemons, 200 A.3d 441 (Pa. 2019) (jury is ultimate fact-finder and sole arbiter of witness credibility)