Abraham Moreno

Abraham Moreno testified for the prosecution on Day 5 about Sarah Boone's statements to him on February 24, 2020. A maintenance supervisor at Tealwood Parke Apartments, he said management called him to her unit while police and her former husband were present. He recalled Boone describing confusion, hide-and-seek, an intention to teach Jorge Torres a lesson, and no further memory until morning. He also recalled her saying Torres went into a suitcase and that she fell asleep. Moreno said he asked no questions during the four- or five-minute conversation and did not recall whether she said things got out of hand.

Under Tony Henderson's cross-examination, Moreno acknowledged that he might not have reported the whole conversation to Detective Scott Lowen, but believed he had mentioned teaching Torres a lesson. He denied having asserted malice and said Boone never explained how things got out of hand. His recollection of police-contact dates remained qualified. He described Torres as an acquaintance rather than a friend; on redirect, he explained that they had lived on neighboring Philadelphia blocks but had no contact after he left that block in 2005 until he worked at Tealwood. The court released him subject to recall at the defense's request.

Chelsey Koepsell later testified about her recorded February 26 interview with Moreno. After reviewing a transcription, she said it did not contain the proposed teaching-a-lesson reference and described Boone's reported statement as passing out, not falling asleep. She also recalled Moreno reporting Boone's allegation that she had been dragged down stairs a couple of days earlier, without confirming exact wording or a definite date. The court sustained the State's objection to reading the statement aloud and permitted its use only to refresh recollection.

James Owens later argued that Moreno had added teaching-a-lesson language after four and a half years, contrasting it with an earlier accident account and invoking an asserted friendship with Torres. Those were defense credibility arguments. Jay objected during an earlier attempt to read material not in evidence, prompting a bench approach.