HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1212-2007
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CP-21-CR-1212-2007
V. :
: CHARGE: LOITERING AND PROWLING AT
: NIGHT TIME
:
HENRY GRAJALES, JR. :
OTN: L342951-0 : AFFIANT: PTL. TIMOTHY HUTCHESON
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
By Ebert, Jr., J., January 16, 2008:
Defendant Henry Grajales Jr. has filed an appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
following a jury trial at which he was found guilty on the charge of Loitering and Prowling at
1
Night Time, a misdemeanor of the third degree. Defendant contends that (1) the evidence
presented at trial was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant
maliciously loitered and prowled around the Zeigler residence; and (2) this Court erred in
2
permitting the Commonwealth to enter into evidence a California robbery conviction. This
opinion in support of the jury verdict is written pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. on March 28, 2007, Defendant Henry Grajales Jr., a
3
twenty-five-year old male, was seen by multiple persons lurking about the Zeigler family’s
private residence located at 342 Rear South Fifth Street in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.
Sixteen-year-old Curt Zeigler was the first of the family members to see the Defendant on
the property. Young Mr. Zeigler was watching television when he noticed the Defendant,
dressed in a darkly colored hooded sweatshirt and pants, walk down the alleyway next to the
house and stare through the family’s living room bay window. The hood of the sweatshirt was
1
See Order of Court, filed Sept. 17, 2007
2
Appellant’s Statement of Matter Complained of on Appeal, filed Nov. 20, 2007.
3
Notes of Testimony of jury trial held Sept. 10-11, 2007, (Hereinafter “N.T. _”) at 129.
4
pulled up over the Defendant’s head and draping over his eyes. Curt informed his mother of the
sighting and told her that he thought the man had walked into the area located between the home
5
and the garage building. Mrs. Zeigler looked out the window and saw a person standing with
his back flush against the wall of the garage. She noticed that he had some type of glove on his
6
hands. Lindsey Zeigler, the elder daughter, also reportedly saw a man with a hooded sweatshirt
pulled up over his eyes, standing flush against the garage wall, putting on what looked like white
7
gloves.
At the alerts of his three family members, Father Zeigler went outside to confront the
man. Mr. Zeigler reports that, upon looking at the area between his house and storage building
(garage), he saw a man walking away from the area toward the alley which runs in front of the
8
Zeigler home. Mr. Zeigler proceeded to walk after the man, who took off into a run. The man
ducked behind another building close to the Zeigler residence and Mr. Zeigler went to alert his
9
neighbors. Five to ten minutes later, the man in dark clothing emerged from behind one of the
buildings in the alley. Upon seeing the man emerge, Mr. Zeigler cried out, “There he is,” at
which point the man took off running again; Mr. Zeigler and several neighbors pursued him,
10
chasing him several blocks to the top of a local bridge. Local police officers, responding to a
11
call placed by Mrs. Zeigler, intercepted the chase on the bridge.
The man running from Mr. Zeigler was quickly identified as the Defendant, Henry
12
Grajales Jr. When officers asked the Defendant what he was doing on the Zeigler property,
Defendant responded that he had been out jogging and had stopped to urinate at the Zeigler
4
Each family member described the lurking man as wearing dark clothes with a hood pulled up over his head and
hanging low over his eyes. N.T. 17, 44, 58, 70-71.
5
N.T. 43.
6
N.T. 43.
7
N.T. 19.
8
N.T. 53.
9
N.T. 54
10
N.T. 55
11
N.T. 82.
12
N.T. 81.
2
13
property. Defendant asserts that he is a diabetic and must often stop suddenly to relieve
14
himself. When asked about why he was wearing latex gloves, Defendant stated that he was a
1516
plumber and the gloves protect him from bacteria he may have on his hands. Three pairs of
17
white latex gloves were found on Defendant’s person. No urine spots were found on the
18
Zeigler property.
At trial, Defendant provided a complex explanation for his actions. Although Mr.
19
Grajales lives at 6703 Conway Road, Harrisburg, on the evening of March 28, 2007, he claims
20
to have been on his way to visit his father who lives in Lemoyne. According to the Defendant,
he parked his commercial vehicle near the alley which runs adjacent to the front of the Zeigler
home, because, “I was going to be returning that next morning, but also stopping to see
somebody I had done some work for that works there in Plum Alley (the alley running adjacent
to the Zeigler home) at the car dealership the next day. Also, my vehicle wasn’t functioning that
well either. It had problems. So I was also looking for him to possibly repair the vehicle as
21
well.” According to Defendant, he got out of the vehicle, began to walk down the alley, and
soon felt the need to urinate. He thought it would be reasonable to find a discreet spot and
relieve himself and then continue on to his father’s house. However, he could not relieve himself
because he had tied a knot in his sweat pants and had a problem trying to “get them off,” due to
22
his wearing latex gloves. The Defendant went on to say that he could not relieve himself
because as soon as he had gotten onto the property, the father of the house walked out the back
13
N.T. 87.
14
N.T. 88.
15
Though he is a self-employed plumber, Defendant is currently working as a home health aide. N.T. 118.
16
N.T. 88.
17
N.T. 92-93.
18
N.T. 105.
19
N.T. 118.
20
N.T. 119.
21
N.T. 120
22
N.T. 121; When asked specifically why he wears the latex gloves, the Defendant answered that because he had
just cleaned out his commercial vehicle, he was concerned about the bacteria on his hands. He had once caught a
very serious bacterial infection, and tries to be more cautious. N.T. 121-122.
3
23
of the home and he thought it best to leave. Defendant then ran to another location to relieve
himself and continued on his way to his father’s home. When he stepped back into the alley, he
24
saw Mr. Zeigler and several other neighbors at the other end of the alley. Intimidated and
25
afraid, he ran to a place where there would be potential witnesses. The men chased him to the
26
point of the bridge, when the police arrived.
Defendant is not a novice to the trial process. On September 2, 1992, following a jury
trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to a prison term of thirteen years
and eight months. Among the crimes for which he was convicted, Defendant was found guilty of
27
robbery and second degree burglary.
DISCUSSION
I. The Evidence Presented at Trial Was Sufficient to Establish Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
that Appellant Maliciously Loitered and Prowled About the Zeigler Residence.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5506 provides:
“Whoever at night time maliciously loiters or maliciously prowls around a
dwelling house or any other place used wholly or in part for living or dwelling
purposes, belonging to or occupied by another, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the
third degree.”
This law means to punish, not only those persons who at night are bent on peeping into the
private affairs of citizens in their dwellings, but also those individuals who are found at or near
dwellings without lawful purpose or reason and whose presence can only be explained in some
preparation for or attempt at illegality or crime. Commonwealth v. Belz, 441 A.2d 410 (Pa.Super.
1982); Commonwealth v. Freitas, 35 Leh.L.J. 292, 1973. To constitute the crime of loitering and
prowling at night time there must be the concurrence of the following elements and
circumstances: 1) there must be a loitering or prowling; 2) it must be done maliciously; 3) the act
23
N.T. 122.
24
N.T. 123.
25
N.T. 124.
26
N.T. 124.
27
Com. Ex. 11.
4
must occur around a dwelling house or other place used wholly or in part for dwelling or living
purposes; 4) the place so used must belong to or be occupied by another; 5) it must be done at
nighttime. Commonwealth v. Brown, 20 Chest. 253 (1972). By way of definitions, to "loiter" is
to stand around or move slowly about, to spend time idly, to saunter, to delay, to linger, or to lag
behind. To "prowl" is to rove or wander over in a stealthy manner; to pace or roam furtively.
Commonwealth v. Belz, 441 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 1982). The word "maliciously" imparts a wish
to vex, annoy or injure another person or an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by
proof or presumption of law. Commonwealth v. Brown, 20 Chest. 253 (1972).
As is true in most criminal proceedings, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving
that the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As the jury was clearly instructed in this
case, a reasonable doubt is a doubt that would cause a reasonably careful and sensitive person to
hesitate before acting upon a matter of importance in her own affairs. Commonwealth v. Trippett,
932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reasonable doubt dictates that a jury may not find a Defendant
guilty of a crime based upon the mere suspicion of guilt. Rather, there must be proof supporting
28
a guilty verdict which would leave a reasonable person to act without hesitation. However,
reasonable doubt does not mean the complete absence of doubt, but rather absence of the
presence of substantive doubt. Commonwealth v. Jones, 563 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. 1989).
As is shown by the facts of the current case, a reasonable person could conclude that each
of the five elements of the crime of loitering or prowling at night time have been satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find the Defendant’s argument that the evidence
presented at trial was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant
maliciously loitered and prowled around the Zeigler residence without merit.
In regards to the first element of the crime, the behavior exhibited by Defendant at the
Zeigler home could fit within the above stated definitions of loitering or prowling. A hooded
28
N.T. 163.
5
man in dark clothes looking through a family’s living room window is an obvious example of
roving or wandering about in a stealthy manner. Additionally, Defendant’s behavior in standing
flush against the garage door for a period of time fits well within the definitions of both prowling
and loitering. As to the element of malicious intent, the presence of latex gloves, paired with
Defendant’s dark apparel, his decision to park a considerable distance from his alleged
destination, the questionable explanations for his actions, and the flight away from the property
reasonably suggest that the Defendant was intending to do a wrongful act. Even if we are to
believe that he was only on the property to urinate, which is in itself a crime, his behavior clearly
had the effect of invading the private residential property of others at night. His actions in
remaining in the private and shadowed area near the garage demonstrates a “lingering” while his
decision to flee upon the appearance of the home owner constitutes the “furtive” behavior
associated with the act of prowling.
Finally, the three remaining elements of the crime are without dispute as the act clearly
took place around a dwelling, house, or other place used wholly or in part for dwelling or living
purposes, the residence belonged to and was occupied by another, and the incident took place in
the mid-evening hours between 9:30 and 10:00.
Having considered all of the relevant evidence, we find that the jury was reasonable in
finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed each and every element of the
crime of loitering and prowling at night time as defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5506.
II. This Court Did Not Err in Permitting the Commonwealth to Enter Into Evidence a
California Robbery and Burglary Convictions.
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609 provides:
“For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the
witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or
nolo contendere, shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement.”
6
Pa.R.E 609(a). The rule continues to provide:
“Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more
than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the
witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later
date unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative
value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.”
Pa.R.E. 609(b).
The Defendant in the current case chose to take the witness stand, thereby opening the
door to impeachment of his credibility. As has previously been stated in the facts, in 1992,
Defendant was convicted of both robbery and burglary, (Commonwealth ex. 11); both of these
crimes are considered crimen falsi under Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 884
A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 2005)(“Robbery and burglary are considered crimen falsi and convictions
for these offenses are admissible for impeachment purposes”), citing Commonwealth v. Jackson,
585 A.2d 1001 (Pa. 1991) and Commonwealth v. Gordon, 512 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super. 1986).
Defendant received a sentence of thirteen years and eight months for his crimes.
(Commonwealth ex. 11). Therefore, because Defendant chose to testify, and as this trial
occurred within ten years of his release from confinement imposed for a crimen falsi conviction,
we find that the evidence of his California convictions is admissible for purposes of attacking
Defendant’s credibility as a witness.
At trial, defense counsel raised an objection regarding the admissibility of Defendant’s
California criminal convictions, claiming that the Commonwealth had not proven that the official
records in fact referenced the Defendant. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108 provides the general admissibility
requirements for business record and official documents:
“A record of an act, condition or event shall, insofar as relevant, be competent
evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the
mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or
near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the tribunal,
the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify
its admission.”
7
42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b). 42 Pa.C.S. § 5328 further defines the requirements for the certification of
official records, particularly in such instances where the prior conviction is one not occurring
within the local area, saying:
“An official record kept within the United States, or any state, district,
commonwealth, territory, insular possession therefore…when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
companied by a certificate that the officer has the custody. The certificate may be
made by a judge of a court of record having jurisdiction in the governmental unit
in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of the court, or by any public
officer having a seal of office and having official duties in the governmental unit
in which the record is kept, authenticated by the seal of his office.”
42 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a). Finally, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6106 provides that certified official documents are
to be regarded as legal evidence:
“Whenever provision is made by law for recording or filing in a public office any
document, the record thereof made, and exemplifications of the document
lawfully certified, shall be legal evidence in all matters in which the document
would be competent evidence.”
In the case at bar, the admitted documents relating to Defendant’s California convictions
satisfy the above-mentioned admission requirements. The documents, relevant for purposes of
impeachment, are clearly stamped with the Official insignia of the Superior Court of California
of the County of San Diego and are signed by Deputy Chris Koger. See Commonwealth Ex. 11.
The documents clearly state Defendant’s name and the crimes for which he was charged and
convicted. Additionally, a photograph of the Defendant was admitted into evidence in which he
is holding a criminal identification plaque reading “H65367 Grajales.” See Commonwealth Ex.
29
12. At trial, Defendant was identified as the person in the photograph. The number and name
in the photograph correspond to the criminal identification number labeling Defendant in the
Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN) Report. See Commonwealth
Ex. 13. The CLEAN report is also consistent in stating the crimes listed in the official
29
N.T. 159
8
documents provided by the California Superior Court. Accordingly, we find that the official
documents are reliable and were properly admitted into evidence at trial.
CONCLUSION
We find that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient that the jury could rationally
find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant maliciously loitered and prowled around the
Zeigler residence. We further reject the argument that this Court erred in permitting the
Commonwealth to enter into evidence a California robbery and burglary convictions.
BY THE COURT,
_____________________
M.L. Ebert Jr., J.
Christylee Peck, Esquire
Senior Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth
Arla M. Waller, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender for the Defendant
9