Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1028 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 01-1028 CRIMINAL TERM AFFIANT: PTL. MICHAEL CLEPPER JAMES FRANKLIN ONEAL-SLOAN OTN: H3157040-4 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Before HOFFER, P.J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, a jury found the defendant, James Franklin OneaI-Sloan (hereinafter "the Defendant") guilty of simple assault. The defendant appeals this verdict. Pursuant to PA. R.A.P. 1925 the defendant filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal. Specifically the defendant states the matters complained of as follows: 1. Defendant asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove even by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim had been assaulted by Mr. Sloan. The victim testified that she had not been assaulted by Sloan and the only evidence the Commonwealth presented to attempt to prove that Sloan had assaulted the victim was a sister who claims she saw bruises on the victim. Under the principle of corpus delecti, this is not enough proof, even by a preponderance standard, to allow in any admissions made by Defendant. 2. Furthermore, the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim suffered from an assault and because the only evidence presented by the Commonwealth was a statement by the sister of the victim saying the victim had bruises and a statement by a police officer who stated that the victim said the Defendant did it. The victim denied the assault absolutely and said that it came from an argument with a female. This does not constitute enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. STATEMENT OF FACTS The defendant was charged with and convicted of simple assault against his girlfriend, Ashley Marie Coleman (hereinafter "Ashley"). Seventeen-year-old Ashley dropped out of the tenth grade in April of 2001 and moved in with the twenty-one-year-old Defendant. (Notes of Transcript, Trial, Sept. 4, 2001, at 21)(hereinafter "N.T. at "). Sometime in the evening of Thursday, April 26, or early Friday, April 27, 2001, the assault occurred. (N.T. at 3). Around this time Ashley was observed with bruises, and cuts and scrapes on her face, neck and arms. (N.T. at 45). These injuries were observed by Ronald James Coleman, Ashley's father, (hereinafter "Ronald'), Amber Lane Coleman, Ashley's sister, (hereinafter "Amber), and Officer Michael T. Clepper of the Carlisle Police, (hereinafter "Officer Clepper"). (N.T. at 10, 25, 35-36). Ashley never went to the hospital or saw a doctor about her injuries. (N.T. at 42). There are no photographs of Ashley's injuries. (N.T. at 36). Ashley refused to press charges or to testify against the Defendant for the assault. Ashley also refused to say who caused her injuries, until trial when she testified that her injuries had been caused by a fight with a female. (N.T. at 39). At the trial the Defendant testified that he did not assault Ashley. (N.T. at 50). The Defendant claims he witnessed a fight between Ashley and another woman and it was that fight that caused Ashley's injuries. (N.T. at 50). However, the Defendant made admissions to both Ronald and Amber Coleman that contradict his story and that of Ashley. 2 Ronald Coleman, after speaking with Ashley and observing her injuries, searched for and confronted the Defendant on Thursday, April 26. Ronald demanded to know why the Defendant hit Ashley. (N.T. at 10). Ronald testified that the Defendant told him that he hit Ashley because she argued with his ex- girlfriend and he'd hit her again. (N.T. at 11). The next morning, Friday, April 27, 2001, Amber learned that Ashley had been injured and went to the Defendant's house to find Ashley. (N.T. at 20). The Defendant was home when Amber arrived and Amber asked him why he hit Ashley. (N.T. at 21). Amber testified that the Defendant told her "don't get beat like your sister." (N.T. at 21). The Defendant told Amber to leave and when Amber refused, Amber claims the Defendant grabbed her neck and pushed her down the front porch stairs. (N.T. at 22-23). As Amber was leaving Ashley came out of the Defendant's house. Ashley refused to leave and told Amber that she and the Defendant were trying to work things out. (N.T. at 24). Amber left the Defendant's house and went to find her father. (N.T. at 24). Amber observed Ashley's injuries. Amber and Ronald went to the police to file charges against the Defendant for assaulting Ashley. (N.T. at 24). Officer Clepper of the Carlisle Police Department investigated Ronald's and Amber's allegations that the Defendant assaulted Ashley. Officer Clepper attempted to interview Ashley about the assault, however, Ashley refused to speak with him. (N.T. at 35). Officer Clepper observed Ashley's injuries. (N.T. at 35). 3 DISCUSSION 1. The Defendant claims the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed simple assault, essentially a weight of the evidence argument. A person commits simple assault if he "attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another." 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2701 (2000). Bodily injury is the "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain" 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2301 (2000). In order to obtain a conviction for simple assault the Commonwealth was required to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant knowingly injured the victim. Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 344 (Pa. 2001). The Commonwealth has met its burden. Essentially in his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal, the Defendant makes a sufficiency of the evidence argument. The test for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the test is whether, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Leatherbury, 322 Pa. Super. 222; 469 A.2d 263, 265 (1983). "This standard is equally applicable to cases where the evidence is circumstantial." Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 447 Pa Super. 192, 195, 668 A.2d 1143, 1144 (1995). "[I]t is the province of the trier of fact to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded the evidence produced. The fact finder is free to believe all, part or none of the 4 evidence." Commonwealth v. Tate, 485 Pa. 180, 182,401 A.2d 353, 354 (1979). Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances." Cassidy, supra. See also, Commonwealth v. Nicotra, 425 Pa Super. 600, 625 A.2d 1259 (1993). The testimony of Ashley, Ronald, Amber and Officer Clepper establish that Ashley had bruises and scrapes on her body consistent with those inflicted during an assault. Although both Ashley and the Defendant testified that the Defendant did not inflict Ashley's bruises and scrapes, the jury chose not to believe their testimony. Instead, the jury believed the testimony of Ronald and Amber that the Defendant told them that he hit Ashley and that he would hit her again. Therefore, the Commonwealth showed, through the Defendant's extra judicial statements to two witnesses, that he had knowingly caused bodily injury to Ashley. Further, Ashley suffered bodily injury because the jury could infer from her injuries that she suffered "substantial pain." 2. The Defendant claims the Commonwealth failed ,to prove corpus delicti and the admissions made by the Defendant should be excluded. The corpus delicti rule places the burden upon the prosecution to establish that a crime has actually occurred before a confession or admission of the accused connecting him to the crime can be admitted. Commonwealth v. Verticelli, 550 Pa. 435, 441, 706 A.2d 820, 823 (1982). Admission of such statements requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that a crime has 5 been committed. Commonwealth v. Friend, 717 A.2d 568, 569 (Pa. Super. 1998). The corpus delicti is literally the body of the crime; it consists of proof that a loss or injury has occurred as a result of the criminal conduct of someone. Id., citing, Commonwealth v. McMullen, 545 Pa. 361, 368, 681 A.2d 717, 720 (1996). The identity of the party responsible is not part of the corpus delicti. McMul'len, supra. The corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Verticelli, supra: The Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crime of simple assault had been committed. To prove corpus delicti the Commonwealth needed only to show that the injuries sustained by Ashley were a result of the criminal conduct of someone, and that the evidence is more consistent with a crime than with an accident. Friend, supra. To prove corpus delicti the Commonwealth does not have to prove all the elements of the crime independently, since corpus delicti is not synonymous with the entire charge. Commonwealth v. Persichini, 444 Pa. Super. 595, 687 A.2d 819 (1995), appeal granted in part, 546 Pa. 595, 687 A.2d ,819 (1997) and opinion afl'd, 737 A.2d 1208 (Pa. 1999). Ronald, Amber and Officer Clepper each testified that they saw bruises and scrapes on Ashley, thus establishing corpus delicti. Therefore, the Defendant's admissions were properly submitted to the jury. 6