HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1960 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RANDALL LEE
GAYMAN
NO. 02-1960 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., April 23, 2003.
IN this case involving criminal trespass, Defendant has appealed to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of sentence.~ The sole issue raised
on appeal is an evidentiary one, expressed as follows in Defendant's statement of
matters complained of on appeal:
It is... suggested that [the trial court] erred in not granting
Defendant's oral motion in limine.., which requested the
exclusion of evidence of Defendant's alleged scattering of gun
powder in the victim's house and the Defendant's alleged
distribution of shotgun shells on the same premises.2
This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As the result of an incident in August of 2002, in which Defendant was
found by Pennsylvania State Police hiding under insulation in the attic of his ex-
girlfriend's house, Defendant was charged with criminal trespass, a felony of the
third degree.3 A jury trial was held in the case on January 29-30, 2003.4
~ Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed March 6, 2003.
: Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed March 18, 2003.
s N.T. 52, 63, Trial, January 29-30, 2003; Information, Commonwealth v. Cayman, No. 02-1960
Crim. T. (Cumberland Co.), filed October 10, 2002.
4 A mistrial had been declared upon Defendant's motion in an earlier jury trial. See Order of
Court, January 22, 2003, Commonwealth v. Cayman, No. 02-1960 Crim. T. (Cumberland Co.).
The basis for Defendant's motion was the Commonwealth's failure to disclose a certain
inculpatory statement of Defendant prior to trial. Id.
The evidence at trial may be summarized as follows. Having been
neighbors in the 1970s,5 Defendant and Denise Diane Ginter renewed their
acquaintance in January of 2002,6 and a romantic relationship ensued.7 On
occasion, Defendant would stay overnight at Plaintiff's hame8 on Raxbury Road,
in Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.9
Ms. Ginter and Defendant temporarily broke up on July 12, 2002, over
Defendant's drinking,l° The resumption of the relationship three days later was
described by Ms. Ginter as follows:
This [the breakup] was Friday, July 12th. I broke
up with him. He tried to call over the weekend and stuff, and I
wouldn't have anything--I wouldn't talk to him or anything.
July 15th was my--is my youngest daughter's birthday, and
we were having a pool party. And ! got a call from [the
Defendant's] boss at--his boss, he was at work, asking me to
come get him, and I said, no, we were done and I wouldn't do
that.
So then later that evening I got a call from our
pastor, who had found [the Defendant] at the church courtyard.
So then I talked to [the Defendant], and then I had made
arrangements for him to go somewhere, and he promised that
that would not be an issue anymore sa--
Q He specifically promised what?
A That he would stop drinking. ~
5 N.T. 6, 92, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
6 N.T. 7, 91, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
7 N.T. 6-7, 92, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
8 N.T. 30, Trial, January 29-30, 2003. According to Ms. Ginter, Defendant slept at her home
primarily on Thursday and Saturday nights, when her children were visiting their father. N.T. 12-
13, 30, Trial, January 29-30, 2003. According to Defendant, he slept there much more frequently
as the relationship progressed. N.T. 93, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
9 N.T. 5, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
l0 N.T. 7, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
~ N.T. 8, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
2
Based upon this promise, Ms. Ginter agreed to resume the relationship.12
However, she advised Defendant that "if you ever drink again, that's it, it's over,
I'm done.''13
About a month later, on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, Defendant's mother,
with whom he lived when not visiting Ms. Ginter,TM discovered a bottle of ginger
brandy in his backpack.15 The following day, Wednesday, August 14, 2002,
Defendant was acting "strangely," according to Ms. Ginter, and she concluded that
he had started drinking again.16 When she drove him to his mother's home that
day, she broke off the relationship permanently:
We got to his mother's house, and I dropped him off
and said, you know, he was a nice guy when he wasn't
drinking, but he was drinking and I was done. I was tired of it,
and I wasn't going through it anymore. I wasn't putting my
children through it. I was done, you know.
I told him to stay away from me, stay away from the
girls. He got ugly, and, you know, said it wasn't over, and I
said, it takes two to have a relationship and I'm done and it is
over, and that's it. And he gave me the finger and I got in the
van and left.l?
[I said, s]tay away from the girls. Stay away from
me. Leave me alone. I never want to see you again,la
I told him I didn't want him anywhere near me, and
stay away from me .... Leave me alone. 19
~: N.T. 8, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
~ N.T. 8, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
14 N.T. 88, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
~s N.T. 90, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
16 N.T. 9, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
~7 N.T. 10, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
~8 N.T. 32, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
19 N.T. 36, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
3
Ms. Ginter stayed at her home that evening (Wednesday, August 14, 2002)
without incident.2° She went to work on Thursday.2~ After returning home that
evening (Thursday, August 15, 2002) around 7:15, Ms. Ginter noticed that some
items in her house had been disturbed.22 Suspecting that Defendant had gotten
into the house, Ms. Ginter searched the house without result, turned the lights out,
locked the door behind her, and went to her mother's house.23
At 9:15 that evening (Thursday, August 15, 2002),24 according to testimony
of Defendant's sister-in-law, Defendant called the sister-in-law from Ms. Ginter's
home25 and expressed his distress at the termination of his relationship with Ms.
Ginter.26 The sister-in-law testified that, in the call, Defendant said that he had a
gun, talked about killing himself when Ms. Ginter returned home, indicated that he
was going to burn her house down, admitted that, unbeknownst to Ms. Ginter, he
had obtained a key to Ms. Ginter's house,27 and stated that he had hidden in her
house before without her knowledge)8
At Defendant's request, the sister-in-law called Ms. Ginter "to see if she
was all right.''29 The sister-in-law then called Defendant back to report that Ms.
30
Ginter considered the relationship over.
20 N.T. 11, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
2~ See N.T. 12, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
22 N.T. 13-14, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
23 N.T. 14-15, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
24 N.T. 38-39, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
:s N.T. 39-41, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
26 N.T. 39, Trial, January 29-30, 2003. Defendant claimed that he did not remember this
telephone call. N.T. 108, Trial, January 29-30.
27 According to Ms. Ginter, one of her two sets of keys to the house had disappeared. N.T. 24,
Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
28 N.T. 39-44, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
29 N.T. 41, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
30 N.T. 41-42, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
4
The following morning (Friday, August 16, 2002), Ms. Ginter returned to
her home, noticed that two gasoline cans had been placed on the front porch,
looked in a window, observed a light in the bathroom, and saw Defendant in the
hallway.3~ Having not given Defendant permission to be in the house32 and being
"scared," Ms. Ginter returned to her mother's home, called the state police, and
was told to call her home and direct Defendant to leave.33 When Defendant failed
to answer the phone, the state police accompanied Ms. Ginter to her home to
secure the premises.34
An initial search of the house by two state troopers, who announced their
presence and proceeded through the residence calling for Defendant to reveal
himself, failed to produce a result.35 A second search, however, resulted in his
discovery by the troopers hiding under insulation in an attic accessed by a drop
ladder.36
Scattered variously throughout the house were shotgun shells, gunpowder
and hay)? With specific reference to the attic where Defendant was found,
Trooper Gregory A. Styres testified, referring to a photograph:
[D]uring the entire search of the attic [for the Defendant] we
were finding numerous shotgun shells lying all over the place,
cut up shotgun shells. In this area over here there was a pile,
right here was a pile, right here by a little ledge there was a pile
of straw and hay with cut up shotgun shells, black powder that
appeared to be gun powder laying within that.
And as we were walking through sitting on top of the
heating duct, which was probably about this high off the floor
3~ N.T. 15-16, Trial, January 29-30, 2003. Ms. Ginter's home was a one-story house, with an
attic. N.T. 19, 22, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
3: N.T. 20, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
33 N.T. 20, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
34 N.T. 20-21, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
ss N.T. 56-58, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
36 N.T. 58-66, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
37 N.T. 27-28, 65-79, 82-83, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
5
trusses, there were shotgun shells laying on that. There was
some matches on there .... 38
The shotgun shells had been brought into the house from a garage where
Ms. Ginter's husband, from whom she was separated,39 was storing them.4°
Inferentially, the loose gunpowder had been extracted from the cut up shells.
Defendant, while admitting (a) that he had entered Ms. Ginter's house on
Thursday, August 15, 2002, with a key which he had, and remained there until his
discovery by police on Friday, August 16, 2002,4~ and (b) that he had remained
hidden in the attic while hearing the troopers calling for him,42 testified that he
believed he was permitted in Ms. Ginter's house.43 He denied distributing shotgun
shells and gunpowder throughout the residence,44 and attributed his reluctance to
reveal his presence to the troopers to an oral direction of his parole officer that he
avoid contact with the police.45
Prior to jury selection in the case, Defendant's counsel made an oral motion
in limine seeking to preclude the Commonwealth's introduction at trial of certain
evidence, including evidence tending to show that Defendant had scattered
gunpowder (and by implication evidence tending to show that he had also
scattered shotgun shells) throughout Ms. Ginter's house, on the ground that "the
probative value, if any, of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudice to the
Defendant.''46 This aspect of Defendant's motion in limine was denied.47
38 N.T.
39 N.T.
4o N.T.
4~ N.T.
42 N.T.
43 N.T.
44N.T'
45 N.T.
46 N.T.
65, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
5-6, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
79-80, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
99-101, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
114, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
100-01, 107, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
102, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
101, 113, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
3, Pre-trial Proceeding, January 27, 2003.
47 Order of Court, January 27, 2003.
6
However, with respect to this evidence the court gave a cautionary
instruction, in language approved by both counsel,48 during its charge to the jury
as to the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered:
The evidence presented to you concerning items allegedly
found in [Ms.] Ginter's house, gun powder, straw, and shells,
and alleged threats by Mr. Gayman should be considered only
for the purpose of determining if Mr. Gayman reasonably
believed that Denise Ginter would have licensed him to enter
or remain and whether the elements of the offense of criminal
49
trespass have been proven.
Following deliberations, Defendant was found guilty as charged by the jury
of criminal trespass, a felony of the third degree.5° On February 25, 2003, based
upon a relatively serious prior record, he received a standard range sentence of not
less than eight months nor more than 23 months in the county prison.5~
Defendant filed an appeal from the judgment of sentence to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court on March 6, 2003.52
DISCUSSION
Statement of law. Section 3503(a)(1)(i) of the Crimes Code provides as
follows:
A person commits [a third degree felony] if, knowing that
he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
... enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
surreptitiously remains in any building or
occupied structure or separately secured or
occupied portion thereof; ....
Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §3503(a)(1)(i).
48 N.T. 118, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
49 N.T. 130, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
s0 N.T. 145, Trial, January 29-30, 2003.
s~ Order of Court, February 25, 2003.
s: Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed March 6, 2003.
7
Under Section 3503(c)(3) of the Crimes Code, "[i]t is a defense to
prosecution under this section that.., the actor reasonably believed that the owner
of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have
licensed him to enter or remain." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, § 1, as
amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §3503(c)(3).
As a general rule, "the admissibility of evidence is a matter addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court .... "Commonwealth v. Claypool, 508 Pa. 198,
203-04, 495 A.2d 176, 178 (1985). Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
Pa.R.E. 401.
"Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." Pa.R.E.
404(b)(1). However, such evidence "may be admitted for other purposes, such as
proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or
absence of mistake or accident." Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). In a criminal case, the
admissibility of such evidence is dependent upon its probative value outweighing
its potential for prejudice. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3).
Application of law to facts. In the present case, the primary issue for
determination by the jury was the plausibility of Defendant's position that he
reasonably believed in his license to enter and remain in the house. Among the
circumstances tending to reduce the likelihood that this proposition was true was
his purported retrieval of shotgun shells from the garage and disbursement of
gunpowder throughout the house with a view toward destroying Ms. Ginter's
home.53
53 Other such circumstances included Ms. Ginter's prior termination of their relationship,
Defendant's purported use of a stolen key to enter the house, his failure to respond to a telephone
call to the home by Ms. Ginter, and his concealment in the attic when state troopers arrived.
8
The issue of Defendant's alleged belief "that the owner of the premises ...
would have licensed him to enter or remain" on this occasion, and the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of such a belief, was a serious one for the
jury's consideration, with evidence tending to support both the Commonwealth's
and Defendant's positions. In view of the importance of the issue to the case, the
significant relevance of the challenged evidence to a determination of that issue,
and the availability of a cautionary instruction limiting the purpose to which the
challenged evidence could be put, the court was of the view that the probative
value of the challenged evidence outweighed any potential for unfair prejudice.
For this reason, the court denied Defendant's motion in limine to preclude its
admission.
BY THE COURT,
Jaime M. Keating, Esq.
Chief Deputy District Attorney
H. Anthony Adams, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
9