Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0702-2007 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : CHARLES EARL JAMES, JR. : CP-21-CR-0702-2007 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., May 19, 2008:-- November 8, 2007 On , defendant, Charles Earl James, Jr., was convicted of 123 rape, sexual assault, criminal conspiracy to rape, and criminal conspiracy to sexual 4 February 21, 2008 assault. On , he was sentenced on the count of rape to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for not less than ten years or more than 5 twenty years. On the counts of sexual assault, criminal conspiracy to rape and criminal conspiracy to sexual assault, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution. Defendant filed a direct appeal from the judgments of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, he avers: 1. The court erred by allowing evidence the defendant left the area months after the incident as a way of establishing flight as consciousness __________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(1). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1. 3 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 3121(1). 4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 3124.(1). 5 This sentence was made to run from November 9, 2007, with additional credit from February 24, 2007 through October 10, 2007. The ten year minimum sentence was a mandatory minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a)(1). CP-21-CR-0702-2007 of guilt. 2. The court erred by not reading the standard jury instruction for reasonable doubt, specifically, by not including the portion of the instruction regarding lack of evidence. 3. The court erred by not polling the jury regarding information published by the local newspapers regarding the defendant’s prior record. 4. The court erred by not allowing defense counsel to question the co- defendant concerning the co-defendant’s possible sentencing exposure. The testimony at trial included the following. The victim testified that on September 22, 2006, she went to a party at the home of defendant, Charles James. Jason Rudisill, who she knew, was present. Among others present who she did not know were defendant James, Walter Morris and Jessica Laconte. Later, Jason Rudisill, driving Jessica Laconte’s car with defendant and Morris along, left to drive the victim home. Instead, Rudisill drove into the country and stopped at a remote location. After Morris got out of the car the victim was raped by Rudisill and defendant. Jason Rudisill testified for the Commonwealth that after he stopped the car he started “messin” with the victim. Defendant held the victim down while he [Rudisill] pulled her pants off, she struggled, and he had sex with her. Rudisill then held the victim down while defendant had sex with her. I. Defendant maintains that the court erred by allowing evidence that defendant left the area months after the incident as a way of establishing flight as consciousness of guilt. This evidence was admitted over objection. The court charged the jury, without objection, that: In this case, the Commonwealth suggests that defendant fled Cumberland County knowing or believing that he was being accused of raping Jessica Keck. Defendant denies that he fled and told you when -2- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 and why he went to where his family lived in Mississippi and the circumstances of why he stayed there. It is for you to determine whether there was flight by the defendant in this case and if so whether it should be viewed as showing consciousness of guilt. The victim told Jessica Laconte on Saturday, September 23, the day after she was assaulted, that she had been raped. Laconte found a condom in her car that same day and threw it away. Defendant testified and acknowledged that on Saturday, rd September 23, a friend called him and told him that the victim had said she was raped. Defendant denied the allegation to his friend. Trooper Douglas Howell tried to locate defendant at the end of September only to find that he was no longer in the area. 6 Defendant was arrested in Meridian, Mississippi on February 14, 2007. Thus, where evidence existed that defendant committed a sexual assault and he knew the day after that the victim implicated him, and he fled not later than eight days later, such evidence 7 was admissible for the jury to consider as to consciousness of guilt. See Commonwealth v. Tinsley, 465 Pa. 329 (1976). II. Defendant maintains that the court erred by not reading the standard jury instruction for reasonable doubt, specifically, by not including the portion of the instruction regarding lack of evidence. THE COURT: Folks, merely because a person is charged with a crime and is a defendant in a criminal case is not evidence. An accused __________ th 6 Defendant testified that he went to Mississippi on October 11 to deal with an issue regarding a disability payment. He was planning to come back on the same day he was arrested in Meridian, Mississippi. 7 The concise statement of matters complained of on appeal which alleges error on the basis that “defendant left the area months after the incident” is an incorrect statement of the evidence. -3- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 comes to court presumed to be innocent, or as we say, cloaked with the presumption of innocence. A defendant has no burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to prove every element of any offense beyond a reasonable doubt and prove the defendant was the person who committed such a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But it must be a real doubt, not an imagined one. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that arises out of the evidence and the evidence alone. It is said to be a doubt that appeals to both reasonable men and women. Now, conceivably there can be a doubt about anything. That’s not a reasonable doubt, nor is it a mathematical certainty, nor is it a doubt you might conjure up out of the desire to avoid the discharge of a disagreeable duty. The law says that a reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause you to hesitate to act in an important affair of your own life. If you have such a doubt, then you should find defendant not guilty. If you have no such doubt, then the presumption of innocence would dissipate, and you would find defendant guilty. Again, a reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause you to hesitate in an important affair of your own life. Defendant presented no point for charge regarding reasonable doubt nor did he make any objection to the charge. Any issue regarding this charge raised for the first time in this appeal, is waived. III. Defendant maintains the court erred by not polling the jury regarding information published by the local newspaper regarding the defendant’s prior record. At the commencement of trial we told the jury: As I told you this morning, you may not discuss this case with anyone. You may not learn anything about this case from any other source other I know that there will be media coverage on than in the courtroom. this trial, so just stay away from that until your work on this trial is done. You may not discuss this case even among yourselves until you are in the jury room deliberating. That is a good rule. The reason is that it is the first time you will know everything you need to know to render a fair and just verdict. (Emphasis added.) -4- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 When the jury was brought to court in the morning of the second day of trial there was a complication that resulted in the inability to start the trial that morning. At 9:20 a.m. the court told the jury: Okay. Whatever the problem is, we had a complication through the fault of no one that prevents us from trying this case this morning. I am going to excuse you until 1:30 this afternoon. I believe we are going to be able to start this afternoon. It is a nice day out. Hopefully you have something to do, and you do not have to stay here or stay in the courthouse during that period of time. the media is full of this case. You must stay away from Lastly, it. It is in both papers, the local paper here and the Patriot. It is on the radio. I think it may be on TV . Keep an open mind. Come back a little before 1:30 upstairs. Hopefully we will start at that time. Sorry for the complication, folks. Recess. (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 9:24 a.m.) (Emphasis added.) The record reflects that in chambers at 9:26 a.m. the following took place. Defense counsel stated: I wanted to have the Court poll the jury concerning an article that was on the front page of the local and state portion of the Patriot News where it’s quoted as saying State Trooper Douglas Howell, who is the affiant in this case, told the paper that James served ten years in prison for a slaying in Mississippi. THE COURT: Here we are on Tuesday morning, and this is in this morning’s paper, right? MR. HALKIAS: Yes, Your Honor. : I am not going to poll the jury. They have been THE COURT instructed specifically by me generally on day one as a group that they are to receive no information from any source. I explained that media, or whatever, and if they do inadvertently or otherwise obtain such information they have a duty to bring it to the attention of the Court. When this jury was brought in yesterday, I told them that they cannot receive information from any source and stay away from the -5- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 media, and right now I just told them again that the media is full of information on it. There is no reason to think that any juror at this particular point has violated their oath, and I do not think it requires a poll because I think it is self-executing if they receive information otherwise. (Emphasis added.) With the repeated instructions that were provided to the jury to avoid receiving any information about the case from the media, and with no representation by the defense of any specific reason to believe that any juror had violated those instructions, not polling the jury in the middle of the trial was within the sound discretion of the court. Defendant has shown no prejudice that would warrant the grant of a new trial. IV. Defendant maintains that the court erred by not allowing cross-examination of Jason Rudisill concerning his possible sentencing exposure. Jason Rudisill, age 20, was charged with the same crimes as defendant involving the same victim. He was represented by counsel, and the charges against him were pending when he testified for the Commonwealth. Rudisill testified that he had no deal with the Commonwealth regarding the disposition of his case but that he hoped to receive some favorable 8 treatment. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to ask Rudisill “what kind of time he’s looking at for each charge,” in other words what the maximum penalty is for each charge. An objection was sustained. We did allow counsel to ask Rudisill if he knew that the charges were felonies that could carry serious time in prison. Counsel then asked Rudisill the following questions: __________ 8 The court gave the jury an accomplice charge regarding Rudisill. -6- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 Q Jason, let me rephrase the original question. The charges that you – what you are charged with, do you know that they are felony charges? A Yes, sir. Q And based on those felony charges you’re looking at some serious time? A Yes, sir. Q By testifying today, you hope to alleviate yourself of that type of – I guess I’ll rephrase that. By testifying, you are hoping to get favorable treatment so you might not be looking at the same amount of time? A Yes, sir. Commonwealth v. Evans, Allowing this testimony was consistent with 511 Pa. 214 (1986), in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated: witness … whenever a prosecution may be biased in favor of the charges prosecution because of outstanding criminal or because of any non-final criminal disposition against him within the same jurisdiction, that possible bias, in fairness, must be made known to the jury. Even if the prosecutor has made no promises, either on the present case or on other witness pending criminal matters, the may hope for favorable treatment witnesstestifies from the prosecutor if the presently in a way that is possibility helpful to the prosecution. And if that exists, the jury should know about it. witness The jury may chose to believe the even after it learns of possible actual promises made or promises of leniency which may be made in the future, but the defendant, under the right guaranteed in the witnesses Pennsylvania Constitution to confront against him, must have the opportunity at least to raise a doubt in the mind of the jury as to witness whether the prosecution is biased. It is not for the court to determine whether the cross-examination for bias would affect the jury’s 9 determination of the case. __________ 9 Based on Rudisill’s testimony we charged the jury: Jason Rudisill testified in this case, and he has been charged and is awaiting trial for the same crimes involving the same incident as defendant is charged, rape, sexual assault, conspiracy to rape, conspiracy to sexual assault. There is testimony that he has received no promises of leniency or favorable disposition from the Commonwealth for his testimony and that if his testimony is consistent with his proffered statement that he previously made to the District Attorney and police, then that statement and -7- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 testimony here cannot be used against him at trial. He’s also testified that he hopes to receive some type of favorable treatment with respect to his case in return for his testimony in this case. Now, you must determine first and foremost what the facts are in all that. You should consider all of this evidence in judging his credibility and the weight to be given to his testimony as to whether it was affected by such facts. -8- CP-21-CR-0702-2007 The maximum sentences for the crimes for which Rudisill was charged were the same as the crimes for which defendant was charged. The maximum sentences were not relevant. For the foregoing reasons, there was no error at trial that would warrant appellate relief. (Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J. Michelle Sibert, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Michael Halkias, Esquire For Defendant :sal -9-