Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74

Appellant Jose Lopez was convicted in Philadelphia County of aggravated assault, a first-degree felony, plus violations of the Uniform Firearms Act and Possessing an Instrument of Crime, and sentenced to 12.5 to 25 years in prison.
The facts center on a December 2, 2008 shooting at the corner of 5th and York Streets, where the complainant Maurice Robinson was shot in the left thigh after recognizing Appellant on the street.
Robinson testified that Appellant, with an older woman, approached, exhibited a black semiautomatic handgun, and fired multiple times; Robinson called 911 and fled; Appellant fled in the opposite direction.
Investigators recovered three shell casings—two .25 caliber and one .22 caliber—from the scene; a search of Appellant’s nearby residence yielded ammunition and documents linking to the alias Angel Adorno.
A photo array led to Robinson identifying Appellant as the shooter; a firearm-examiner matched the .25 casings to a PMC box, and the .22 casing to Winchester ammunition; a nonlicense certificate for Appellant was introduced.
Defense argued insufficiency of evidence and challenged hearsay and witness admissibility; the trial court held multiple evidentiary rulings, and the jury (or trial court) ultimately convicted Appellant, with appeal following.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain guilt	Lopez contends the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Lopez argues the Commonwealth failed to connect him to the crimes with sufficient proof.	Evidence was sufficient; conviction affirmed.
Admission of hearsay via Detective Leahy’s testimony	Leahy’s reference to a police log as hearsay was improperly admitted.	The log was a business record and properly admitted; corroborating evidence existed.	Harmless or proper evidentiary basis; no reversal.
Admission of hearsay via the complainant’s statement	Hearsay from the complainant’s statement was improperly admitted through Leahy.	Any error was harmless given surrounding evidence and proper foundation.	No reversal; error not prejudicial.
Admission of Jamie Eisenhuth as a witness	Eisenhuth’s late disclosure and expected testimony violated discovery and prejudiced the defense.	Disclosures complied with rules and Eisenhuth’s testimony was limited in scope.	No reversible error; admission proper and non-prejudicial.
Mistrial following prosecutorial summation	Prosecutor’s closing arguments were prejudicial and warranted a mistrial.	Any improper remarks were curable by the court’s cautionary instruction.	No abuse of discretion; cautionary instruction cured potential prejudice, mistrial denied.

Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1289 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sufficiency standard; circumstantial evidence valid for guilt)
Commonwealth v. Stays, 40 A.3d 160 (Pa. Super. 2012) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain verdicts)
Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559 (Pa. 2006) (police logs as business records; public records exemption)
Commonwealth v. duPont, 860 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2004) (evidentiary rulings; harmless error when cumulative)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 609 A.2d 200 (Pa. Super. 1992) (need for continuance to cure prejudice; continuance preferred)
Commonwealth v. Gordon, 364 Pa. Super. 521 (Pa. Super. 1987) (prejudice from late discovery requires prejudice showing)