HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2176-2003COMMONWEALTH
V.
FELIX M. TORRES
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2176 - 2003
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J. May ,2004
After a bench trial on January 27, 2004, we found the defendant guilty of
harassment.~ On that same date we sentenced him to pay the costs, make restitution and
undergo imprisonment for three to ninety days.2 The defendant has filed this timely
appeal. The sole issue raised on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of September 21, 2003 Teresa Wolf was asleep in an
apartment she shared with her fianc& She was awakened by loud conversation in the
kitchen. She went into the kitchen to ask the defendant and her fiancd to be quiet so that
she could sleep. The boisterous conduct continued and Ms. Wolf was forced to repeat the
process two more times. The third time the defendant became upset and repeatedly
struck her in the head with an 18 inch wooden spoon while declaring his intention to
"whoop your ass".
DISCUSSION
The standard of review in assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is well
settled and was recently articulated by our Superior Court as follows:
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709 (a)(1).
Since he had already served his minimum sentence, he was immediately paroled without supervision.
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2176 - 2003
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. Heberling, 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 applying [the above] test, we may not
weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder. 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 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, 406-7, Pa. Super. (2001). Applying this
standard to the current case, we were satisfied that the evidence was sufficient.
The section of the Crimes Code under which the defendant was tried provides as
follows:
(a) Offense defined - 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). Based upon the facts as we found them to be, we were
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Commonwealth had proven all the elements
of that offense.
CP-21-CRIMINAL 2176 - 2003
At trial defendant claimed that he never once hit Ms. Wolf. We did not find his
testimony to be credible. On the other hand, we believed Ms. Wolf' s testimony that
defendant attacked her with the spoon. We also believed that he declared his intention
when he told her that he was going to "whoop your ass". Therefore, we found him guilty
of the count of harassment which was before us.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
Michelle H. Sibert, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Jessica B. Rhoades, Esquire
For the Defendant
:sld