from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 25, 2018 In the
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS [*], P.J.E.
Luis Enrique Marrero, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County after
a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of a
controlled substance,  third offense, and driving while under the
influence of alcohol and a drug or combination of drugs that
impaired his ability to drive safely, third
offense.Sentenced to an aggregate term of twelve to
forty-eight months' incarceration followed by a
twelve-month probationary tail, Appellant now challenges the
trial court's failure to discharge a juror alleged to
have made remarks during trial indicating racial bias and
prejudice. We affirm.
trial court discusses the pertinent factual history, as
The Affidavit of Probable Cause attached to the Criminal
Complaint . . . filed on May 2, 2017, alleges that Appellant
was found unconscious in a Chevy Monte Carlo that was in
drive and running. The front end of the vehicle was up
against a fence located on a residential property. Responding
officers woke Appellant after several attempts and Narcan was
administered. An open container of beer and a partially
smoked cigarette that appeared to have been dipped in a
controlled substance were in the vehicle.
On the second morning of trial, after the Commonwealth had
presented its final witness, the trial court was advised by
the Court Crier that Juror #14 reported that he believed that
Juror #6 had made a disparaging statement on the prior day.
See N.T. 6/27/18, at 9-10. Specifically, Juror #14
reported that in the course of a conversation amongst the
jurors regarding the concept of facing trial before "a
jury of your peers," Juror #6 said, "oh well, none
of us are [sic] his peers." N.T. at 4. Juror #14 took
this comment as possibly referring to Appellant's Latino
With trial counsel and the prosecutor present, the trial
court questioned Juror #6 regarding this statement. She
admitted having made it and stated further that she was
referring to the fact that she is older than the Appellant:
THE COURT: A question has arisen. One of the
jurors thought he heard you say something about- you were
discussing-when I say
the jury was discussing jury by peers and so forth-and you
may have said something along the lines-
JUROR #6: Right.
-[']well, the [Appellant] certainly
is not one of our peers['] or
something like that.
JUROR #6: Right.
THE COURT: Is that-
JUROR #6: Just that I'm a lot older than
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR #6: That's all I meant by that.
THE COURT: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that there was no-any kind of bias or anything-
JUROR #6: Oh, no.
THE COURT: -that would prevent you from
reaching a fair and impartial ...