HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-1143 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
Vo
ROBERT LEE ANDERSON, JR.
OTN: L061209-1
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
·
·
·NO. 2000-1143 CRIMINAL TERM
·
IN RE' OPINION PURSUANT TO PA R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., November 7, 2000
Defendant was charged with simple assault,l disorderly conduct,2 graded a
misdemeanor of the third degree, and summary harassment.3 A jury was impaneled to
hear the evidence with regard to the misdemeanor counts, and we acted as the fact finder
on the summary harassment count. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case in
chief, we granted the defendant's request for judgment of acquittal in connection with the
disorderly conduct charge. At the conclusion of the evidence, we found the defendant
4 He was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and a fine of
guilty of harassment.
$150 in connection with the harassment conviction. This timely appeal followed.
Defendant's counsel has filed a concise statement of matters complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa. Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). His only issue on appeal is
an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence in connection with the harassment charge.
We are satisfied that this issue is without merit.
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2701 (a)(1)
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5303
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2709(a)
The jury acquitted him of the simple assault charge.
NO. 2000-1143 CRIMINAL TERM
DISCUSSION
The charges against defendant arose from an incident that occurred as he and the
victim were ending their romantic relationship. What started as a verbal argument ended
in a physical melee in which each party claims to have been the innocent victim of an
unprovoked assault by the other. We will not rehash the charges and counter charges,
other than to say that we found the victim's version of events to be more believable.
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of
harassment. The standard of review on a sufficiency of the evidence claim is whether all
of the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences to be dra~vn therefrom, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is
sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that all of the elements of the offense were
established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v? Cox, 556 Pa. 366, 728 A.2d
923, (1999). "Moreover, it 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 evidence." Commonwealth v. Tate, 485 Pa. 180, 182,
401 A.2d 353,354 (1984)
The Crimes Code provides as follows'
§ 2709. Harassment and stalking
(a) Harassment.-A person commits the crime of harassment when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person'
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to
physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same;
18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). In the instant case we believed the testimony of the victim as
to how the verbal argument mined physical. She testified as follows'
NO. 2000-1143 CRIMINAL TERM
Q What was his reaction to that?
A He asked me was I cheating on him, and I told him no, and that's
when he jumped up and told me that I had to be cheating on him, and
that's when he hit me. He smacked me.
Q Where did he smack you?
A He smacked me on my face, and I believe it was on the left side of
my face.
Q Do you remember, open hand or closed fist?
A No, the first hit was open.
Q Was there another hit?
A The second hit was another smack, which the smack that he gave
me, that's when I fell on the bed. The second hit was also an open
smack,s
This testimony, standing alone, was clearly sufficient to convince us beyond a reasonable
doubt that all of the elements of harassment had been proven.
There were many separate ihcidents, as related by the victim, that occurred during
the altercation which would have supported the harassment verdict. We see no need to
detail those incidents here. We do, however, feel the need to mention that the verdict
could be sustained upon defendants own testimony. During the course of direct
examination, he related the following:
Q Now, before that you used the word that the two of you were
tussling, which I think is the same word that Takiya used when she
testified. Explain what you mean by tussling?
A Well, I did something really ignorant when we started tussling and
I took the bat from her. See my cousin wets the bed, right?
Q I can't understand you.
A My cousin wets the bed. He pees in the bed at night. So the bed is
real urine, foul smelling, right? So I grabbed her- - I grabbed her and I
said if you don't stop I'm going to put your head in the mattress, fight?
You know what I'm saying? I wasn't going to really do it, you know what
I'm saying? And I put her face real close and stopped.
Q How did you put her face there? Did you have to grab her to do
that?
A When I took her back I pinned her. Like I had her arm locked, and
I had the back of her back.6
Trial Transcript, p. 14.
Trial Transcript, p. 92.
NO. 2000-1143 CRIMINAL TERM
·
The above conduct was clearly meant to annoy or alarm the victim.
For the reasons we are satisfied that there evidence was abundantly sufficient to
justify the verdict of guilty on the harassment charge.
NOVEMBER ? ,2000
Edward E. Guido, J.
Michelle Hamilton, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld