Background
J-S44005-25 2026 PA Super 156 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MICHAEL ALLEN STARK : : Appellant : No. 1648 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003952-2023 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J. OPINION BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED JULY 22, 2026 Michael Allen Stark appeals, nunc pro tunc,1 from the judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions of one count each of first-degree murder, 2 second-degree murder,3 robbery—inflict serious bodily injury,4 robbery—threaten serious ____________________________________________ 1 Prior to the instant appeal, Stark had filed an appeal to this Court, which was quashed as untimely. On May 5, 2025, Stark filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546, seeking reinstatement of his right to file a direct appeal, nunc pro tunc. The PCRA court appointed counsel and, ultimately, the Commonwealth agreed that Stark’s appellate rights should be reinstated. On June 9, 2025, the PCRA court granted Stark’s PCRA petition and reinstated his appellate rights nunc pro tunc. This appeal follows. 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a). 3 Id. at § 2502(b). 4 Id. at § 3701(a)(1)(i).
, picked up Stark and brought him to work. However, shortly after arriving at Enchlor, Branning took Stark home. Later, Stark informed Tagg that he would also be able to work on October 15, 2021 and wished to discuss the possibility of increasing his hours and transitioning to full-time employment. On October 15, 2021, Branning and Tagg arrived at work at approximately 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., respectively. At approximately 2:00 p.m., Tagg left Enchlor and asked Branning to notify him when Stark arrived. Tagg received no update from Branning and, at 4:30 p.m., returned to Enchlor to find the business empty. Tagg, believing Branning had left for the day and that Stark’s failure to appear was an indication that Stark had voluntarily chosen to end his employment, locked the building and went home. On October 16, 2021, Branning’s family reported him missing to the Bucks County police. Specifically, they explained that Branning had not come home from work after his shift on October 15 and had missed several scheduled family events on the evening of October 15 and the morning of October 16. On October 19, 2021, Stark’s family reported Stark missing because they had not heard from him in several days. -3- J-S44005-25 On October 17, 2021, Detective Travis Schoonover of the Perkasie Borough Police Department was assigned to investigate Branning’s disappearance. Through the course of his investigation, he acquired the help of Detective David Hanks of the Bucks County Detectives Bureau, 13 who specialized in cell tower data.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion that this evidence was not cumulative, not de minimis, and, ultimately, was far more prejudicial than probative, we must ascertain whether the other evidence was so overwhelming and that the prejudicial effect was, thus, so insignificant by comparison that the trial court’s error was harmless. We conclude that the facts of this case are not so overwhelming that the trial court’s admission of Stark’s prior convictions were harmless. We reiterate and emphasize that, here, the Commonwealth’s direct evidence demonstrated that Stark and Branning left Enchlor in the afternoon of October 15, 2021, and both men traveled to New Jersey, and then to the Kensington section of Philadelphia. Throughout this trip, there is no evidence that either of the two men communicated with anyone. That is the last shred of evidence regarding the activities or location of Stark or Branning until October 27, 2021 and November 2, 2021, respectively. That is 12 days and 17 days, respectively, before either of the men are seen again. The Commonwealth presented almost no evidence that the men were together during that period of time, with the exception of the time they traveled together in New Jersey and Kensington. Seventeen days later, Branning’s body was recovered in Maryland, and his vehicle was later located – 33 – J-S44005-25 in Virginia in December of 2021. The Commonwealth further demonstrated that, at least at some point between October 15, 2021, and October 27, 2021, Stark operated Branning’s vehicle. See Commonwealth Exhibit C-66 (Stark’s DNA present on steering wheel and other portions of vehicle).
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion that this evidence was not cumulative, not de minimis, and, ultimately, was far more prejudicial than probative, we must ascertain whether the other evidence was so overwhelming and that the prejudicial effect was, thus, so insignificant by comparison that the trial court’s error was harmless.
- We conclude that the facts of this case are not so overwhelming that the trial court’s admission of Stark’s prior convictions were harmless.
- We reiterate and emphasize that, here, the Commonwealth’s direct evidence demonstrated that Stark and Branning left Enchlor in the afternoon of October 15, 2021, and both men traveled to New Jersey, and then to the Kensington section of Philadelphia.
Why It Matters
Superior Court orders a new murder trial over prior-bad-acts evidence Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.