Com. v. Washington, A., 2258 MDA 2015

On Dec. 28, 2014, Lancaster police arrested Akeem Washington after a confrontation at Yorgos Restaurant; officers allege he resisted and was tased. Washington later threatened the arresting officers and Sergeant Berkheiser.
While jailed, Washington shared a cell with inmate Treymayne Jones; over two days Washington repeatedly discussed plans to kill Officers Berry and Pannone and Sergeant Berkheiser and asked Jones to assist (lure the officers, act as lookout). Jones reported these statements to jail/police and gave two written statements.
Police recovered a semi-automatic handgun at Washington’s wife’s home; Jones described access to additional rifles through relatives but no corroborating searches were completed for those cousins’ homes.
Washington was tried and convicted by jury on three counts of solicitation to murder the three officers (acquitted as to Berkheiser’s family) and sentenced to 25.5–60 years.
On appeal Washington raised three evidentiary challenges: (1) request for mistrial after a witness statement mentioned Washington had “multiple gun charges,” (2) objection to admitting testimony/video of the initial arrest incident as prejudicial/cumulative, and (3) challenge to the trial court’s limitation on impeachment of Jones regarding prior drug arrests/convictions.

Issue	Washington's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
1. Mistrial after witness statement mentioning “multiple gun charges”	Statement was prejudicial and required mistrial	Curative instruction could cure prejudice; statement inadvertent	No abuse of discretion; judge’s immediate, strong curative instruction cured prejudice
2. Admission of officers’ testimony/video about arrest incident (context/motive)	Testimony was prejudicial, cumulative to Jones’ statements and not necessary since jury knew charges	Testimony provided context, corroborated Jones, and was admissible for limited purpose (motive/identification)	Evidence admissible for limited purpose; not excludable as cumulative; no abuse of discretion
3. Cross‑examination/impeachment of Jones with prior drug arrests/convictions	Trial court improperly limited impeachment; Jones opened door by denying drug arrests	Defense initiated drug line; court allowed crimen falsi impeachment and jury already heard Jones’ criminal history	No relief—defense opened the line, did not introduce extrinsic evidence, and court did not abuse discretion

Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for mistrial and trial court discretion to grant one)
Commonwealth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723 (Pa. 2014) (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Hoover, 16 A.3d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2011) (scope of cross‑examination and impeachment decisions lie within trial court discretion)

Judgment of sentence affirmed.