Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0367, 97-2032 criminalCOMMONWEALTH VS. JEFFREY DAVID MART1N IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-0367 CRIMINAL 97-2032 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 The defendant has filed this appeal from our order of March 4, 1999, denying his post- sentence motions. The proofs of the Commonwealth at trial established that on January 16, 1997, two men drove to Brunner's Sunoco Station in East Pennsboro Township. One of the men, identified as wearing a raincoat, entered the gas station, took a firearm from his pocket, and robbed the gas station attendant, Lester Henry, of approximately $131.00. Shortly after the men left in their vehicle, as a result of a police bulletin, J~ffrey David Martin, and his brother, co- defendant John Paul Martin, were stopped traveling in a direction consistent with their recent departure from Brunner's Sunoco Station. A subsequent search of the defendant's vehicle produced a .22 caliber pistol matching the description of the firearm used in the robbery. Also found was $131.00 in cash. At subsequent hearings in this case, the victim, Lester Henry, positively identified Jeffrey Martin as the man who had held him up at gun point. Prior to the trial of the case, Lester Henry died of natural causes. At the jury trial held in this case, the prior testimony of Mr. Henry was introduced into evidence. In addition, the defendant was identified by several police officers as having been the passenger in the vehicle driven by his brother. The Commonwealth also established that, by virtue of a prior conviction, the defendant was precluded from possessing a firearm and, in any event, had no license to carry same. The Commonwealth also offered expert testimony to the 97-2032 CRIMINAL 98-0367 CRIMINAL effect that the firearm used by the defendant in the robbery was functional. The defendant's post-sentence motion challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. In concluding whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction, the trial evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. Com. v. Feathers, 442 Pa. Super. 490, 499-500, 660 A.2d 90, 94-95 (1995). The question then becomes whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to determine that the elements of the crimes charged had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In this regard, it is the function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and to determine the weight to be accorded the evidence produced and the jury is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence introduced at trial. Id__~. The decision of the jury controls unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that the verdict cannot stand as a matter of law. Id.. The jury, in this case, found that the identifications of the defendant, complete with the minor inconsistencies that the defendant argues renders them ineffective, were accurate. In addition to the identification, a weapon similar to that used in the robbery as well as currency matching the stolen cash was taken from the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger; all within minutes of the robbery. We are satisfied that the guilty verdict in this case was not only legally defensible but proper. April ,21 ~ , 1999 A. Hess, J. · 97-2032 CRIMINAL 98-0367 CRIM1NAL David J. Freed, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Austin Grogan, Esquire Assistant Public Defender 'rlm