Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2387 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 00-2387 CRIMINAL : : BERNARD ALEXANDER : IN RE: POST-SENTENCE MOTION OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the defendant, Bernard Alexander, was convicted at a j ury trial of one count of simple assault. The jury could not agree on whether or not the defendant was a person not to possess a firearm and acquitted him of receiving stolen property. The unresolved charge has been nolle prossed on June 8, 2001. The defendant was sentenced on a count of simple assault to a term of not less than nine months nor more than twenty-four months in a state correctional institution. The defendant has filed a post-sentencing motion alleging that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of simple assault. When reviewing a claim based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must view “all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Com. v. Torres , 766 A.2d 342, 344 (Pa. 2001). In this case, the charge arose out of incidents that occurred on Sunday, September 24, 2000. On that date, the victim, Janel Harrison, and the defendant, Bernard Alexander, were residing together at an apartment at 23 Parker Street in the Borough of Carlisle. According to Ms. Harrison, the parties began to argue and Mr. Alexander began to throw things, including dishes. He ordered Ms. Harrison out of the apartment and she began to pack her belongings. At that point the defendant hit Ms. Harrison in the face with his hand. He then produced a handgun and said that he was going to kill her. Ms. Harrison then left the apartment and the defendant then 00-2387 CRIMINAL followed. Outside, while on the sidewalk, the defendant continued to hit the victim. After Mr. Alexander claimed that they would simply go for a ride and talk, Ms. Harrison agreed to drive her car. As Ms. Harrison was driving, the defendant, once again began to strike her. She, in an attempt to defend herself, scratched him in the face. The vehicle came to a halt in the vicinity of the Carlisle Plaza Mall. The defendant exited the passenger side of the car and approached Ms. Harrison who was still sitting in the driver’s seat. He opened the car door and commenced to punch her. These events were witnessed by a man who lived in the vicinity, Ralph Smith. In his post-sentence motion, the defendant contends that the evidence in the case was insufficient as a matter of law to disprove the defense of self-defense. When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth then bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. v. Torres , 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001). The Commonwealth’s testimony in this case is clear that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. Instead, to the extent that she could, Ms. Harrison attempted to defend herself from Mr. Alexander’s violent behavior. The question of whether or not to accept Ms. Harrison’s testimony was, of course, for the jury. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2001, the post-sentence motion of the defendant is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. 2 00-2387 CRIMINAL Office of District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant : rlm 3 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 00-2387 CRIMINAL : : BERNARD ALEXANDER : IN RE: POST-SENTENCE MOTION ORDER AND NOW, this day o f October, 2001, the post-sentence motion of the defendant is DENIED. BY THE COURT, _______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, J. Office of District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant : rlm