Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of criminal homicide, criminal conspiracy to commit homicide

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | . : 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to [sustain] a conviction of criminal homicide, criminal : conspiracy to commit homicide where the Commonwealth failed to establish, beyond a . . . reasonable doubt, the existence of a conspiratorial agreement, the specific intent of which was to : . _ commit criminal homicide, prior to the death of Ervin Holton? . ; . 2, Whether the evidence was sufficient to [sustain] a conviction of criminal homicide or criminal : . -. . conspiracy to commit homicide where the Commonwealth conceded at trial that [Appellant] was : fot 4 shooter, and offered no evidence of his presence at the scene, when, a conviction of murder : cannot stand without sufficient evidence of accomplice liability? ; "+ 3. Whether the trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine to present . . evidence of [Appellant's] drug dealing and prior drug arrests under [Pa.R.E.] 404(b) by order and 7 .opinion on November 14, 2016? . . : ue 4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting 911 tapes referencing a Honda Odyssey without ~ . ; ; : affording the Appellant his right to cross-examination guaranteed and by the confrontation clause : 3 Lo . of the United States Constitution? . . 5. Whether this honorable court erred when it barred the defense from cross-examining James cot ; Martin on his status as a sex offender registrant? : . Looe . : 6. Whether this honorable court erred when it failed to grant Appellant's request for a mistrial due to Nicole Green[e]'s testimony that Appellant was incarcerated during most of the time they soot : ’ dated? . : : , 7. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence? , . : 8. Whether the trial court erred over Appellant's objection in denying Appellant's motion for ‘ ‘severance, failing to order separate trials, and determining that (] Appellant would notbe : prejudiced by being tried with his co-defendant Omar Robinson(?J . : : 9. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant's motion for change of venue/venire . where the pretrial publicity was sustained, pervasive, inflammatory, and inculpatory and there was ‘ a presumption of prejudice in selecting a fair and impartial jury from Northampton County? : . , 10. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Appellant['s] motion to suppress statements , made to police on December 5, 2012 and December 4, 2014? : : -” 44. Whether the sentence of the court toa mandatory life sentence without the possibility of : . parole for First[-]Degree Murder is unlawful where the underlying statute is unconstitutional and . ; the sentencing issue was not presented to the jury? . 42. Whether the mandatory sentence of Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of . parole for murder of the first degree violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? oe : 13. Whether the court erred in denying Appellant's request to instruct the jury that in Pennsylvania , The moidetory Sev tence Sor Mest (J Degree Marder 18 URe Imprisonment (emprlebianties seen stgee OMe? Afrettowts Brick At 2-5 | i 1, Su : . \ , ’ ggested Answers, ONS Some, Citations omitted)