If You Commit a Crime with a Gun, You Might Not Want to Use a Purple Gun with a Blue Laser Sight

The trial court summarized the evidence adduced at Appellant’s jury trial …

On February 11, 2023, … [(Ms. South)] was carjacked in Reading City, Berks County, Pennsylvania, by three men in black balaclavas[, one of whom] brandish[ed a] handgun[ ] with blue laser sights….

The evening prior, on February 10, 2023, a video [(“the video” or “the YouTube video”)] was uploaded to the online video sharing platform[,] YouTube[,] depicting Appellant and [two] other men in black balaclavas handling and displaying various firearms with blue laser sights, including a purple Glock handgun. [The video was admitted into evidence and played for the jury at trial, albeit without sound.] The video itself is undated, though Appellant appears to be around the same age [in the video and at the time of the offense,] and is depicted wearing the same sweatshirt in which he was apprehended ten days later.

{The video, which is a part of the certified record, remains posted on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-IX9rvOflg (last visited Oct. 1, 2026); N.T., 5/15/25, Commonwealth Ex. 1. At several points during the two-minute-long video, Appellant (1) partially removes his facial covering, revealing his face; and (2) is holding a purple Glock handgun equipped with a blue laser sight. The video is accompanied by background music that was created by a rap musician with whom Appellant claims to have no association.} …

Approximately ten days later, on February 20, 2023, Officer Redinger of the Northwest Regional Police identified Ms. South’s stolen car while on patrol in Mount Joy Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. When [Officer Redinger] attempted to pull the car over using lights and sirens, the vehicle fled. Several minutes later, law enforcement officers were eventually able to stop the fleeing vehicle using spike strips. Four male occupants, including Appellant, emerged and fled on foot in different directions[,] in pairs of two.

Sergeant [Seth] Arnold [(Sergeant Arnold)] of the Northwest Regional Police chased two of the males, including Appellant, behind a nearby residence. Sergeant Arnold was able to apprehend Appellant when [Appellant] tripped and fell near a trampoline in the backyard [of a residence].

When Sergeant Arnold retraced Appellant’s path of flight, he observed a bright blue light shining in the grass near the trampoline. Closer inspection revealed the light to be emanating from a purple Glock handgun with a blue laser attachment….

Appellant contends the trial court’s improper admission of the video violated his right to free expression ….

“[T]he government generally lacks the authority to restrict expression based on its message, topic, ideas, or content.” Our Supreme Court has explained that “First Amendment freedoms apply broadly to different types of expression, including art, poetry, film, and music. Such freedoms apply equally to cultured, intellectual expressions and to crude, offensive, or tawdry ones.” …

Here, the trial court determined that no violation of Appellant’s right to free expression occurred by the admission of the video:

Necessarily, to raise a colorable claim under … the First Amendment …, speech itself must somehow be restricted or sanctioned by the government…. [In this case,] Neither the substantive lyrics nor expressive portrayals contained in the YouTube video at issue served as the basis for any of Appellant’s criminal convictions. Saliently, Appellant’s conviction for firearms not to be carried without a license did not stem from the depiction of Appellant displaying a firearm in the undated YouTube video. Rather, it was based on the totality of the circumstances indicating his power and intent to control the firearm in the early morning hours of February 20, 2023. The video was properly admitted solely to introduce its non-expressive aspects. Namely, it was highly probative of the fact that Appellant, having apparently constructively possessed the rare purple Glock with a blue laser sight shortly before the carjacking [of Ms. South], was likely to have continued to possess the weapon up to the point at which he discarded the weapon when fleeing from police ten days later. In short, because the artistic expressions contained in [the] video were not regulated or sanctioned by the Commonwealth in the instant matter, the free speech clauses of neither the federal nor the Pennsylvania Constitution were implicated by the admission of th[e] video at trial.

The trial court’s reasoning is supported by the record, and its legal conclusion is sound. We conclude the trial court did not err in admitting the video, and Appellant’s constitutional right to free expression was not implicated….