Commonwealth v. Green, 162 A.3d 509

In 2011 Green was the manager of a Family Dollar store and responsible for making cash deposits to the store's bank account via night-drop procedures.
Family Dollar's loss-prevention review discovered four missing deposits (including one for $2,900.83 on July 2011) and logs showed Green signed as responsible for those deposits.
Green produced a deposit slip for the $2,900.83 deposit that bank and store investigators determined had been altered and bore sequence/cash-box information matching a June deposit, not July.
PNC’s internal fraud investigator (Doheny) testified she searched teller journals (found no matching deposit) and reviewed surveillance video but the actual videotapes were not produced at trial; defense objected under the best-evidence rule.
The jury convicted Green of one count of theft (failure to make required disposition of funds received) for the $2,900.83 loss, acquitted on the other three counts; trial court sentenced Green to probation and restitution.
On appeal Green argued (1) admission of Doheny’s testimony about the surveillance videos violated the best-evidence rule and required a new trial, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the theft conviction. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Green's Argument	Held
Whether admitting bank-investigator testimony about surveillance video (when original tapes were not produced) violated the best-evidence rule	Testimony was admissible and, even if error, any error was harmless because other untainted evidence established guilt	Admission violated Pa.R.E. 1002; lack of original tapes prejudiced Green and requires a new trial	Court: Any error (if one) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt — testimony was limited and cumulative to other strong evidence (altered slip, lack of bank record, store logs)
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict Green of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received	Circumstantial and documentary evidence (store logs, Green’s admissions of responsibility, altered deposit slip, bank records showing no deposit) proved all elements of §3927(a)	Evidence was insufficient — no proof of intent to convert funds, no proof Green personally benefited or used the money	Court: Evidence sufficient; Commonwealth proved Green had the funds, had the legal obligation to deposit them, intentionally dealt with them as his own (by producing altered slip), and failed to make the required disposition

Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 781 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2001) (admissibility depends on relevance and probative value)
Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708 (Pa.Super. 2011) (overview of relevance/probative-value standards)
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 623 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super. 1993) (discussing best-evidence rule and surveillance videotapes)
Commonwealth v. Fisher, 764 A.2d 82 (Pa.Super. 2000) (best-evidence rule applies only when contents of writing/recording are necessary to establish elements of the offense)
Commonwealth v. Townsend, 747 A.2d 376 (Pa.Super. 2000) (same principle re: when originals are required)
Commonwealth v. Loughnane, 128 A.3d 806 (Pa.Super. 2015) (proponent must show diligent search when original recording cannot be produced)
Commonwealth v. Morrissey, 654 A.2d 1049 (Pa. 1995) (elements of theft by failure to make required disposition)
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011) (sufficiency review standards)
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa.Super. 2004) (harmless-error standards for erroneously admitted evidence)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (harmless-error beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa.Super. 2011) (harmless-error appellate review)