J-A26016-20
`
`NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Appellant
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
` IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
` PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 1824 EDA 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2019
`In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
`No(s): CP-09-CR-0004366-2018
`
`
`BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
`
`MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2020
`
`Joseph Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
`
`Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions by a jury of
`
`two counts of first-degree murder1 and one count each of criminal attempt to
`
`commit homicide,2 firearms not to be carried without a license,3 recklessly
`
`____________________________________________
`
`* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501(a).
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`endangering another person (REAP),4 possessing an instrument of crime
`
`(PIC),5 and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.6
`
`Williams’ convictions stem from his role in the shooting deaths of
`
`Tommy Ballard and Zyisean McDuffie outside of April Coleman’s home, 914
`
`Elmhurst Avenue, in Bristol, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 2018. On that date,
`
`Coleman hosted a party for her two children who planned to attend their high
`
`school prom later that evening. Several family friends were present, including
`
`Williams, Gary Goddard, Jr.,7 Tajon Skelton, Rayshaun James, and Sincere
`
`McNeil. These individuals were all gathered around Coleman’s Chrysler
`
`Pacifica, which was parked on her front lawn area. At one point, James and
`
`Williams walked away together—outside the view of area pole cameras—so
`
`that James could discreetly give Williams a firearm, which Williams placed into
`
`his waistband. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 178-80. Shortly thereafter,
`
`McDuffie arrived at the Coleman residence, approached the group at the
`
`Chrysler Pacifica, and shook hands only with Williams. Williams then asked
`
`____________________________________________
`
`4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910.
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` At trial, Gary Nathaniel Goddard, Jr., was sometimes referred to as “Static”
`or “Little Gary.” For clarity, we refer to him exclusively as “Goddard, Jr.”
`Goddard, Jr., is the son of Gary Goddard, who is Williams’ co-defendant, and
`who was charged separately in connection with the same shooting incident.
`We consider Gary Goddard’s appeal separately at Commonwealth v.
`Goddard, 2097 EDA 2019.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`why McDuffie did not acknowledge the others, at which point McDuffie stated
`
`that he “didn’t mess with none of [them]” and called them all “bitch.” Id. at
`
`190. At the end of the verbal confrontation, McDuffie left, stating he would
`
`return soon.
`
`When McDuffie returned about forty-five minutes to an hour later, he
`
`was accompanied by Ballard, Jahmier Wilson, and Jackie Valentine; Williams
`
`and Wilson then walked away together to have a private conversation. Within
`
`the larger group, still standing around the Chrysler Pacifica, an argument
`
`ensued amongst Goddard, Jr., McNeil, McDuffie, and Ballard. McDuffie
`
`punched Goddard, Jr., in the face, and within moments, Williams removed the
`
`firearm from his waistband and began firing it at Wilson, who was running
`
`away from him. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 110-14; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19,
`
`at 170-73. Although Williams fired repeatedly at Wilson, Wilson was not
`
`injured, but McDuffie and Ballard were struck. Ballard collapsed in the front
`
`yard of 911 Elmhurst Avenue and McDuffie was struck but still standing in the
`
`driveway of 916 Elmhurst Avenue.
`
`Gary Goddard then appeared, walking down Weston Avenue, with his
`
`hand raised and wielding a firearm. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 281-84.
`
`Standing in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue, Goddard fired in the direction of
`
`the homes, and then at McDuffie, whose legs gave out from under him after
`
`the shots were fired. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 67-68. Goddard stood over
`
`McDuffie and discharged his firearm, lodging a bullet in McDuffie’s head just
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`above the hairline. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 288; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19,
`
`at 117-22, 226-29.
`
`Williams, Skelton, and James fled the scene of the shooting towards
`
`Skelton’s home, located at 816 Winder Drive. After only a short time, Lemuel
`
`Skelton, Skelton’s father, became aware of the shooting, and directed Williams
`
`and James to leave his residence. Before leaving, Williams took Tajon
`
`Skelton’s white polo shirt. When police arrived at the Skelton residence,
`
`officers found Williams’ abandoned red shirt in a trashcan as a result of a
`
`consensual search.
`
`While conducting a search in the area of the shooting, police observed
`
`Williams running shirtless through a wooded brush area with James. Officers
`
`overheard Williams tell James, “Don’t worry about it; you didn’t do nothing
`
`wrong.” N.T. Jury Trial, 3/7/19, at 168-69. Upon being discovered by the
`
`officers, Williams stated to the police, “Sir, please put me in handcuffs. I don’t
`
`want to die.” Id. at 170-71. Police found Tajon Skelton’s white polo shirt in
`
`Williams’ pants pocket.
`
`The officers subsequently reviewed video footage from pole cameras
`
`near the scene of the shooting. In the footage, police observed Williams,
`
`James, and Skelton running away from the shooting down Winder Drive.
`
`Williams was wearing a red shirt as he fled the scene. The three fleeing
`
`individuals entered the backyard of 703 Winder Drive, remained off-camera
`
`for one minute and thirty seconds while in the yard, and reemerged on camera
`
`travelling further down Winder Drive. The footage of Williams running shows
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`his hands located around his belt area prior to entering the rear yard of 703
`
`Winder Drive, but after leaving, his hands were no longer in his belt area.
`
`Police were dispatched to that address, where the owner of the property
`
`consented to a search. Police noticed a grill, which was completely covered
`
`in dirt and grime, except for the left handle. After searching the grill, police
`
`recovered a Rossi .38 Special revolver sticking out of the back near the
`
`propane tank. All five of the revolver’s cartridges were spent, and it contained
`
`shell casings. Skelton confirmed through testimony at trial that Williams was
`
`the only one who approached the grill when the three individuals were in the
`
`rear yard of 703 Winder Drive. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 171-73.
`
`Other testimony revealed that Goddard, Jr., chased Wilson from the
`
`scene of the shooting, gun in hand and pointed forward with his arm fully
`
`extended. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 38-41; see also N.T. Jury Trial,
`
`3/18/19, at 223-25.
`
`When police arrived at the scene, Officer Michael Sarciewicz first found
`
`Ballard, who was still able to talk and move, lying in the grass at 911 Elmhurst
`
`Avenue. A crowd then directed the officer to McDuffie, who was unresponsive,
`
`located in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue. The officer observed bleeding and
`
`several gunshot wounds on McDuffie, and commenced cardiopulmonary
`
`resuscitation (CPR). McDuffie and Ballard were both transported to Frankford-
`
`Torresdale Hospital, where McDuffie was pronounced dead on arrival, and
`
`Ballard pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`Doctor Zhonghue Hua conducted the autopsies of Ballard and McDuffie.
`
`Ballard was nineteen years old and suffered three gunshot wounds: one to
`
`his left lower chest area, which punctured his liver and injured the right
`
`kidney; one on his left side, with an exit wound above his buttocks; and one
`
`graze wound to his thumb. The bullet from Ballard’s first wound, which was
`
`still lodged in his body, was removed and turned over to investigators. Doctor
`
`Hua determined that the wound to Ballard’s torso was the cause of his death,
`
`and deemed it a homicide. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at 180-88. McDuffie
`
`was also nineteen years old and suffered five gunshot wounds, including one
`
`each to his forehead above the hairline, his left upper back, his right flank, his
`
`right kneecap, and a graze wound to his right upper chest. Doctor Hua
`
`determined the fatal injury was the gunshot wound to his right flank, which
`
`punctured McDuffie’s kidney. Id. at 193-94. Intact bullets were removed
`
`from McDuffie’s kneecap, head, and abdomen, and were turned over to
`
`investigators. Doctor Hua concluded McDuffie was still alive at the time he
`
`was shot in the head due to evidence of brain bleeding, that the cause of death
`
`was multiple gunshot wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.
`
`Id. at 215.
`
`Police additionally removed two bullets from 914 Elmhurst Avenue—one
`
`had been lodged in the siding of the residence; the other entered a window,
`
`proceeded through the kitchen, through a box of cereal, and into the wall
`
`before striking a flue and falling onto the utility room floor. See N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/6/19, at 212-23, 227. Eric Nelson, of the Montgomery County
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`Detectives,8 conducted a forensic examination of all six of the recovered
`
`bullets. The bullet recovered from the utility room and the one recovered
`
`from McDuffie’s skull were discharged from a .32 H&R revolver found by police
`
`in Gary Goddard’s apartment. The fatal bullets recovered from McDuffie’s
`
`abdominal wall and Ballard’s right torso were shot from the .38 Rossi Special
`
`firearm, which was recovered from the grill behind 703 Winder Drive. The
`
`other bullets recovered from McDuffie’s right knee and the siding of 914
`
`Elmhurst Avenue were not traced to a known firearm, but were revealed to
`
`have been fired from a firearm similar to a .38 revolver or .9 mm pistol. See
`
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 232-39.
`
`On May 5, 2018, the Commonwealth charged Williams with, inter alia,
`
`criminal homicide in connection with the shooting deaths of Ballard and
`
`McDuffie. At a preliminary hearing, the court permitted the Commonwealth
`
`to amend the charges, held all charges for court, and docketed the case at
`
`docket number 4366-2018. On August 14, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a
`
`criminal information reflecting the amendments.9 On October 18, 2018, the
`
`____________________________________________
`
`8 Detective Nelson explained that, although he works for the Montgomery
`County Detectives, he often does work for the “surrounding counties,”
`including Bucks County. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 213.
`
` 9
`
` The information charged Williams as follows: Count 1 – first-degree murder;
`Count 2 – first-degree murder; Count 3 – criminal attempt to commit
`homicide; Count 4 – aggravated assault; Count 5 – possession of a firearm by
`a person prohibited; Count 6 – discharge of a firearm into an occupied
`structure; Count 7 – firearms not to be a carried without a license; Count 8 –
`REAP; and Count 9 – PIC.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`Commonwealth separately charged Williams at docket number 7352-2018 in
`
`connection with the unlawful sale and transfer of the firearm that was used to
`
`kill Ballard and McDuffie.10 At a preliminary hearing held on December 18,
`
`2018, the court held all charges for court, and docketed that case at docket
`
`number 7352-2018.
`
`On March 4, 2019, the court held a hearing prior to the commencement
`
`of trial to resolve outstanding pretrial matters. At that hearing, the court
`
`granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate the two cases against
`
`Williams with the case against Gary Goddard for a joint jury trial. The court
`
`also granted Williams’ motion to sever the charge of possession of a firearm
`
`by a person prohibited.
`
`A joint jury trial commenced on March 4, 2019, and concluded on March
`
`22, 2019. At the close of deliberations, the jury convicted Williams of the
`
`above-stated offenses.
`
` During
`
`the
`
`trial,
`
`the court granted
`
`the
`
`Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi the charge of aggravated assault,
`
`and granted Williams’ demurrer as to the crimes of discharging of a firearm
`
`into an occupied structure, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities, criminal
`
`conspiracy to commit sale or transfer of firearms, and sale or transfer of a
`
`firearm. After trial, the court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`10 The Commonwealth charged Williams as follows: dealing in proceeds of
`unlawful activities, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5111(a)(2); criminal conspiracy to commit
`sale or transfer of firearms, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903; sale or transfer of firearm,
`18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(g)(2); and tampering with or fabricating physical
`evidence, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`prosequi possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, which had been
`
`previously severed.
`
`
`
`On May 3, 2019, as to docket number 4366-2018, the court sentenced
`
`Williams on Count 1 (first-degree murder) to a period of incarceration of life
`
`without the possibility of parole; Count 2 (first-degree murder) to a term of
`
`incarceration of life without the possibility of parole, to be served consecutively
`
`to Count 1; Count 3 (criminal attempt to commit homicide) to a term of 120
`
`to 240 months’ incarceration; Count 7 (firearms not to be carried without a
`
`license) to a term of 42 to 83 months’ incarceration; Count 8 (REAP) to a term
`
`of 12 to 24 months’ incarceration; and Count 9 (PIC) to a term of 30 to 60
`
`months’ incarceration, with Counts 3, 7, 8, and 9 to be served concurrently to
`
`Counts 1 and 2. As to docket number 7352-2018, the court sentenced
`
`Williams to 12 to 24 months’ incarceration to be served concurrently with the
`
`two consecutive life sentences docketed at 4366-2018.
`
`
`
`On May 13, 2019, Williams filed a post-sentence motion under docket
`
`number 4366-2018, which the court denied on May 29, 2019. On June 20,
`
`2019, Williams filed a notice of appeal as to docket number 4366-2018. On
`
`June 25, 2019, the trial court ordered Williams to file a concise statement of
`
`errors complained of on appeal no later than 21 days subsequent, pursuant to
`
`Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On August 1, 2019, Williams filed an untimely Rule
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`1925(b) statement.11 The court subsequently filed a joint opinion as to both
`
`Williams’ and Goddard’s appeals, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(a).
`
`On appeal, Williams presents the following issues for our review:12
`
`
`
`
`1. Did the [c]ourt err in refusing to allow [Williams] to impeach
`the hearsay testimony of [Justin Olexovitch,] a Commonwealth
`witness?
`
`2. Did the [c]ourt err in admitting a letter [Williams] wrote from
`prison to [William Flemming, his cousin,] that had no relevance
`to the criminal acts charged in the information?
`
`Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
`
`
`
`Both of Williams’ issues present evidentiary challenges. We review a
`
`trial court’s decision of whether or not to admit evidence under the following
`
`well-established standard:
`
`The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion of the
`trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal only
`upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of
`discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely
`because an appellate court might have reached a different
`conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or
`____________________________________________
`
`11 Despite Williams’ untimely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, this Court may
`consider the merits of his appeal. See Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39
`A.3d 335, 340 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“When counsel has filed an untimely Rule
`1925(b) statement and the trial court has addressed those issues[,] we need
`not remand and may address the merits of the issues presented.”). The court
`addressed Williams’ issues in its Rule 1925(a) opinion; therefore, we may
`proceed to the merits of his appeal.
`
`12 Due to a conflict of interest arising from court-appointed appellate counsel’s
`representation of Williams, see Motion to be Withdrawn as Counsel, 4/16/20,
`Attorney Stuart Wilder, Esquire, entered his appearance before this Court on
`April 15, 2020, following his appointment in the trial court. We then permitted
`Attorney Daniel Schatz, Esquire’s withdrawal. See Order Granting Application
`to Withdraw as Counsel, 4/27/20. Attorney Wilder filed a timely appellate
`brief raising the issues contained herein.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as
`to be clearly erroneous.
`
`Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970, 975 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting
`
`Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697, 716 (Pa. 2015)) (internal
`
`citations and quotation marks omitted).
`
`First, Williams argues that the court erred when it denied his motion to
`
`call Detective Gregory Beidler to the stand. Specifically, Williams argues that
`
`he should have been permitted to impeach, through the testimony of
`
`Detective Beidler, a hearsay declaration made by Justin Olexovitch, pursuant
`
`to Pa.R.E. 806 and the Confrontation Clause. We agree with Williams that
`
`there was error, but, as explained in greater detail below, determine that the
`
`error was harmless.
`
`At trial, the Commonwealth called Rayshaun James to testify that Justin
`
`Olexovitch gave him a gun with instructions to give that weapon to Williams.
`
`See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64. The Commonwealth offered James’
`
`testimony to support a conviction for Williams’ alleged conspiracy to commit
`
`sale or transfer of firearms.13 This hearsay statement—James’ testimony that
`
`Olexovitch instructed James to give the gun to Williams—was admitted as a
`
`statement uttered in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy, pursuant to Pa.R.E.
`
`____________________________________________
`
`13 Other evidence introduced by the Commonwealth which supported this
`charge included: the unlawful purchase of the murder weapon by a straw
`purchaser; how the gun came into Olexovitch’s possession; and, that James
`gave Williams the firearm, who only a short time later, used it to murder
`Ballard and McDuffie. As previously noted, the court ultimately granted
`Williams’ demurrer with regard to this charge.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`803(25)(E). See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 125; see also Trial Court
`
`Opinion, 3/3/20, at 28-30.
`
`Before resting, the defense made a motion to call Detective Beidler to
`
`the stand. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 124-28. Williams notified the
`
`court that Detective Beidler would testify that when he interviewed Olexovitch,
`
`Olexovitch stated that he gave no one instructions to give a gun to Williams.
`
`Williams claims that this evidence should have been admitted under Rule 806
`
`because it impeaches Olexovitch’s previously-admitted hearsay statement,
`
`which was entered into evidence via Rayshaun James’ testimony. See
`
`Appellant’s Brief, at 11.
`
`As noted above, the trial court denied Williams’ motion to call Detective
`
`Beidler. The court stated for the record that it made its decision in light of the
`
`fact that it had already granted Williams’ demurrer as to conspiracy to commit
`
`sale or transfer of firearms. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 127. The court
`
`opted, instead, to provide the jury with a cautionary instruction: that any
`
`mention of Olexovitch should be disregarded. Id. at 128 (“I’m going to give
`
`the jury an instruction; that they may have heard the name Justin Olexovitch,
`
`but that they should not in any way consider what reference was made to him
`
`in their deliberations because he’s not a party, and for those reasons I’ve given
`
`a special instruction not to consider any connection to Justin Olexovitch by
`
`any issue in this case.”).
`
`Nevertheless, the instruction given to the jury differed materially from
`
`what had been previously discussed on the record, insofar as the court
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`permitted the jurors to determine for themselves the importance of
`
`Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration, rather than instructing that Olexovitch had
`
`no connection to Williams’ case:14
`
`Members of the jury, there was a mention, and it’s for you to
`remember, of a person named Justin Olexovitch in this case. I’ll
`tell you now that he is not on trial here. Even though he was
`mentioned, it’s for you to recall how important his testimony
`may have been. I mentioned to you certain witnesses were not
`called and the inference you can draw when I mentioned Jahmier
`Wilson, but with regard to Justin Olexovitch, it’s enough for me to
`tell you that he did not have to testify in this case because he
`possessed a legal privilege not to testify, you should not draw an
`inference of whether his testimony would have been favorable to
`the Commonwealth or the defense, and if he has refused to testify
`because of this special legal privilege, no inference should be
`drawn by you with regard to this testimony, and I’ll tell you now
`that you shouldn’t consider and give great weight to the fact that
`
`____________________________________________
`
`14 The trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the Commonwealth’s brief
`apparently misapprehended Williams’ present claim of error: the trial court
`understood Williams to be objecting to James’ testimony on the grounds of
`inadmissible hearsay, see Trial Court Opinion, 3/3/19, at 28-30, while the
`Commonwealth characterizes Williams’ early attempts to grant Olexovitch
`immunity as the genesis of his claim. See Appellee’s Brief, at 21-24.
`Although a similar trial purpose is evident in each of these strategies, Williams’
`present claim stems from his motion to call Detective Beidler to the witness
`stand to impeach Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration, pursuant to Rule 806, see
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 124-28; not Williams’ objection to James’
`testimony as hearsay, see N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, 163-64, or his motion to
`grant Olexovitch immunity to testify. See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing, 3/4/19, at
`102-08. Additionally, both the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the
`Commonwealth’s brief would have this Court find that the court’s cautionary
`instruction cured any error with regard to Williams’ claim. See Trial Court
`Opinion, 3/3/19, at 30; see also Appellee’s Brief, at 23-24. Nevertheless,
`the court’s instruction failed to address Rule 806 in any material way—likely
`as the result of the same misapprehension—and, therefore, was not curative.
`See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/21/19, at 61-62; see also Commonwealth v.
`Maloney, 365 A.2d 1237, 1241 (Pa. 1976) (“[A]dequate instructions under
`some circumstances may cure error[.]”).
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`his name was mentioned except as it appeals to you in
`proving the case against these defendants.
`
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/21/19, at 61-62 (emphasis added).
`
`Williams argues that James’ testimony—that Olexovitch instructed
`
`James to give the gun to Williams—bolstered the Commonwealth’s claim that
`
`Williams possessed the illegally-purchased murder weapon. Williams argues
`
`that the admission of this testimony ultimately helped prove the
`
`Commonwealth’s homicide cases and the remaining charges for which the jury
`
`convicted Williams. See Appellant’s Brief, at 11; see also Appellant’s Reply
`
`Brief, at 1. We agree; but for the reasons stated below, we also find this error
`
`to be harmless, beyond a reasonable doubt.
`
`“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by
`
`law.
`
` Evidence that
`
`is not relevant is not admissible.”
`
` Pa.R.E. 402.
`
`Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact
`
`that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
`
`less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Pa.R.E. 401. Moreover,
`
`hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, though several exceptions allow
`
`for its admission. One such exception, Pa.R.E. 806 (Attacking and Supporting
`
`the Declarant’s Credibility), relevant here, provides:
`
`When a hearsay statement has been admitted in evidence, the
`declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by
`any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the
`declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit
`evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct,
`regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an
`opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the
`statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-
`examination.
`
`Pa.R.E. 806.
`
`
`
`Here, the trial court admitted Olexovitch’s hearsay statement, which
`
`was related to the jury via Rayshaun James’ testimony. See N.T. Jury Trial,
`
`3/12/19, 163-64. Although the Commonwealth made its evidentiary proffer
`
`in support of a charge which the court ultimately dismissed (conspiracy to
`
`commit sale or transfer of firearms), James’ retelling of Olexovitch’s statement
`
`also had the effect of bolstering the evidence that supported the remaining
`
`and still-pending charges. Thus, even if the conspiracy charge was no longer
`
`at issue, because Olexovitch’s hearsay declaration bolstered the evidence
`
`relating to the other still-pending charges, Olexovitch’s credibility was open to
`
`attack by an inconsistent statement. See Pa.R.E. 806; see also
`
`Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255, 288 (Pa. 2015) (“[Rule 806]
`
`provid[es] for the admission of hearsay statements challenging the credibility
`
`of the declarants of previously admitted hearsay statements.”).
`
`Williams’ proposed admission of Detective Beidler’s testimony, that
`
`Olexovitch denied instructing the delivery of a weapon to Williams, certainly
`
`qualifies as an inconsistent statement when compared with James’ already-
`
`admitted testimony. Detective Beidler’s proposed testimony was thus
`
`admissible under the rule, even if deemed hearsay. See Walter, supra. The
`
`court’s instruction to the jury, having failed to address this point, did not cure
`
`the error. See n.12, supra. Nevertheless, we hold that the trial court’s
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`error—the denial of Williams’ motion to call Detective Beidler to the stand to
`
`attack Olexovitch’s credibility, pursuant to Rule 806—was harmless.
`
`
`
`Our Supreme Court has long held that:
`
`although a perfectly conducted trial is indeed the ideal objective
`of our judicial process, the defendant is not necessarily entitled to
`relief simply because of some imperfections in the trial, so long as
`he has been accorded a fair trial. A defendant is entitled to a fair
`trial but not a perfect one. If a trial error does not deprive the
`defendant of the fundamentals of a fair trial, his conviction will not
`be reversed.
`
`Commonwealth v. Noel, 104 A.3d 1156, 1169 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
`
`Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 135 (Pa. 2008)) (brackets and
`
`quotation marks omitted). Where a trial court has erroneously failed to admit
`
`evidence, we may find that no new trial is warranted if we are convinced the
`
`error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v.
`
`French, 578 A.2d 1292, 1301 (Pa. Super. 1990). The Commonwealth carries
`
`this burden. Commonwealth v. Adams, 39 A.3d 310, 322 (Pa. Super.
`
`2012). Our Supreme Court has clarified that harmless error exists where
`
`the record demonstrates either: (1) the error did not prejudice
`the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the
`erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other
`untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the
`erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and
`uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the
`prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison
`that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.
`
`Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 671-72 (Pa. 2014).
`
`
`
`Here, the Commonwealth argues that the prejudice to Williams was de
`
`minimis and that the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`Williams’ guilt was so overwhelming by comparison to the error, that it could
`
`not have contributed to the verdict. See Appellee’s Brief, at 31-33. We agree.
`
`At trial, numerous individuals testified that they saw Williams possess
`
`the gun, discharge it, or both. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 178-79 (James
`
`testified he walked “off camera” with Williams, handed Williams firearm, and
`
`Williams placed it in waistband); id. at 203-07 (James testified he heard
`
`gunshot, saw Williams place firearm in waistband again, and saw Williams
`
`running with Skelton; James followed pair to rear yard where the three stayed
`
`before proceeding to Skelton’s home); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/7/19, at 193-94
`
`(Officer Dennis Leighton testified he observed pole video camera footage of
`
`scene after shooting, showing Williams entered backyard of 703 Winder Drive,
`
`waited approximately one minute before fleeing rear yard; police found
`
`murder weapon hidden inside grill in rear yard.); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at
`
`108-09 (Officer Edmund O’Brien testified as to observations of pole camera
`
`video, “For [] Williams, as he was running from the 600 block to the 700 []
`
`block [of Winder Drive], his right hand was observed on his right side right
`
`around the belt loop area. . . . Coming out of [703 Winder Drive] he appears
`
`to be running as normal.”); N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 51-52 (Valentine
`
`testified that he told detectives he “watched Joey Williams [shoot] Tommy
`
`Ballard”), at 101 (“[Commonwealth Attorney:] And when he shot the gun you
`
`knew his name was Joey Williams, correct? [Jackie Valentine:] Yes.
`
`[Commonwealth Attorney:] And when he shot Tommy Ballard you knew his
`
`name was Joey Williams, correct? [Jackie Valentine:] Yes.”); N.T. Jury Trial,
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`3/15/19, at 112-14 (April Coleman testified “I just know [Williams] stepped
`
`back, and he pulled out the gun, and I heard pow. . . . He shot again. . . .
`
`[Williams] shoots again, and then I lost view. I heard a third shot[.]”); N.T.
`
`Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 105-07 (Krystalyn Coleman testified “[Williams] had a
`
`gun in his hands [with it pointed forward and shot it] in the direction [Wilson]
`
`was running from [sic]. . . . That’s when I see [Williams]. So I froze because,
`
`I mean, I don’t want to run in front of the bullets. He’s shooting at him. I
`
`don’t want to get hit, so I just stopped.”).
`
`Here, we find the failure to admit Williams’ proposed impeachment
`
`evidence was a de minimis error, especially when compared to the
`
`overwhelming admitted evidence that supported findings that Williams
`
`possessed and fired the murder weapon. See Hairston, supra. Additionally,
`
`the Commonwealth correctly notes that once the court granted Williams’
`
`demurrer as to the conspiracy charge, the importance of Olexovitch’s
`
`testimony regarding the remaining charges was greatly minimized—the
`
`manner in which Williams acquired the weapon had little significance in
`
`answering the question of whether he murdered Ballard and McDuffie and
`
`whether he intended to kill Wilson. See Appellee’s Brief, at 32. Further, other
`
`evidence adduced at trial overwhelmingly supported Williams’ convictions: all
`
`of the firsthand witness testimony regarding what transpired at the scene;
`
`that Williams fled the scene; that he abandoned the shirt he wore at the time
`
`of the shootings; and that he made incriminating statements at the time of
`
`his arrest. See Hairston, supra.
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`J-A26016-20
`
`We find beyond a reasonable doubt that the properly admitted evidence
`
`of Williams’ guilt was so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the court’s
`
`error regarding the failure to admit the proposed impeachment evidence so
`
`insignificant by comparison, that the error could not have contributed to the
`
`verdict. Id.; see also Adams, supra. Accordingly, the trial court’s error did
`
`not deprive Williams of the fundamentals of a fair trial.15 See Noel, supra.
`
`In his second and final issue on appeal, Williams claims the trial court
`
`erroneously admitted a letter that he wrote to his cousin, William Flemming,
`
`from prison, after his arrest. See Appellant’s Brief, at