Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1184-2002COMMONWEALTH V. KARLOS E. CADDELL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-1184 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., March ,2003 The defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of recklessly endangering~ and by the court of two counts of summary harassment.2 On December 17, 2002, he received probationary sentences. He has filed this timely appeal. The only issue raised on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Standard of Review. The standard of review in assessing a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled. The Superior Court recently articulated that standard as follows: "The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of evidence is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Heber/ing, 451 Pa. Super. 119, 678 A.2d 794, 795 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 539 Pa. 61,650 A.2d 420 (1994)) .... IN addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 447 Pa. Super. 192, 668 A.2d ~ 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2705. 2 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). NO. 2002-1184 CRIMINAL 1143, 1144 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Falette, 531 Pa. 384, 388, 613 A.2d 548, 549 (1992) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Commonwealth v. Martinez, 777 A.2d 1121, 1126 Pa. Super. (2001) quoting from Commonwealth v. Fetrini, 734 A.2d 404, 406-407 Pa. Super. (1999). Applying the above standard to the case at bar, we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts.3 FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 8, 2002, the defendant asked to borrow $20 from a patron at the Hess gas station in Carlisle. When the patron refused to give it to him, the defendant tried to grab it. When he could not reach it, he became angry and started wrestling with the patron.4 The store manager, Ronald Tritt, intervened to stop the fracas. The events that followed form the basis of the charges for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced. After the manager broke up the wrestling match, the defendant remained agitated and was yelling profanities. 5 Mr. Tritt's efforts to calm him down were to no avail. As he turned away, the defendant grabbed Mr. Tritt's arm and 3 Since no post sentence motion in arrest of judgment was filed, this opinion is the first opportumty we have had to address this issue. 4 The defendant had also been charged with robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(v) which provides: A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (v) physically takes or removes property from the person of another by force however slight. Since there was no evidence that the defendant took anything from the victim, his motion to dismiss that count was granted. No similar motions were made in connection with the other charges. s N.T. 88. NO. 2002-1184 CRIMINAL tore off his wrist watch.6 The defendant then took a swing at another patron, landing a glancing blow on his jaw.7 When Mr. Tritt told an employee to call the police, the defendant tried to flee.8 As Mr. Tritt and others were trying to get his license number, the defendant stepped on the gas, pulled away "really quick" and almost hit Mr. Tritt.9 One of the employees yelled "watch out" and Mr. Tritt had to jump away to avoid being run over by the defendant's car. l0 Despite the quick evasive action, the defendant's vehicle still came within inches of striking Mr. Tritt. ~ Harrassment. The section of the crimes code under which the defendant was charged provides as follows: (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 each of the instances for which the defendant was convicted, he subjected the victim to physical contact. In both instances, he acted intentionally. In the one instance, he not only grabbed the victim, he also tore the watch from his wrist. In the other, he punched the victim in the jaw. Based upon those intentional actions and all the surrounding circumstances, we were satisfied that it was 6 N.T. 88-89. This action formed the basis of one count of the harassment for which he was convicted. 7 N.T. 89. This action formed the basis of another count of harassment for which the defendant was convicted. 8 N.T. 89. 9 N.T. 44-45, 64, 90. l0 N.T. 45. ~ N.T. 45. It was the action of nearly running over Mr. Tritt with his vehicle that gave rise to the recklessly endangering charge. NO. 2002-1184 CRIMINAL the defendant's "intent to harass, annoy or alarm" each of the victims. Recklessly Endangering. The defendant was convicted of recklessly endangering another person in violation of the following provision of the Crimes Code: A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2705. When he jumped in his vehicle to leave the scene, he backed up very quickly. The vehicle almost struck Mr. Tritt as well as several other customers.~2 In fact, if Mr. Tritt had not taken evasive action in response to an excited warning from his co-employee, he would have been run over. That evidence is certainly sufficient to sustain the verdict of recklessly endangering. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant :sld 12 N.T. 44-45.