Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1406 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH DONALD W. WOODS, SR., Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 99-1406 CRIMINAL :CHARGE: PERJURY- 18 Pa.C.S. 4902(a) :AFFIANT: DET. SIMON JACKSON IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Before HOFFER, P.J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: On February 1, 2000, defendant, Donald W. Woods, Sr., was convicted, after a jury trial found him guilty of perjury pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. 4902(a). In defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the defendant sets forth that he is entitled to have the jury verdict set aside because, as a matter of law, his statements could not constitute perjury, and the weight of the evidence was such that no reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of perjury.1 Additionally, defendant argues that, as a matter of law, none of the statements offered was proof of perjury, and as specified by the Bill of Particulars, constitute perjury.2 In Commonwealth's Answer to the Bill of Particulars, the prosecution detailed the allegations as follows: The defendant testified that he was unable to walk more than approximately 10 to 15 feet in any given day. (Notes of Testimony 7/27/98 (hereinafter "N.T.") p. 7, lines 1-4, p. 12, lines 5-14); and/or ] Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), filed July 21, 2000. : Defendant's Post-Sentencing / Post-Trial Motions, filed February 11, 2000, as incorporated into Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. 2. The defendant was unable to lift more than 10 to 15 pounds at a time. (N.T.p.12, lines 15-17); and/or 3. The only source of income defendant had was from his social security check. (N.T.p.8, lines 4-9, line 2); and/or 4. The last time defendant held employment was May or June of 1997. (N.T.p.5, lines 20-21, p.10, lines 9-11).3 Although the informations need not set forth the exact language alleged to be perjurious, it must sufficiently apprise the defendant of the charges he must answer. Commonwealth v. Lafferty, 276 Pa. Super. 400, 419 A.2d 518 (1980). In the case before this Court, the District Attorney did in fact suitably state what the specific allegations of perjury were. A careful review of the documentary evidence in this case reveals clear and positive proof that defendant testified falsely in the proceedings before the Honorable Judge Kevin A. Hess. When defendant appeared at his support hearing on July 27, 1998, the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether defendant was in contempt of Court for failing to make child support payments. Although defendant has seven (7) children to six (6) different women, only four (4) support cases are active. Defendant testified before Judge Hess that he was unable to walk more than ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in any given day. Defendant was asked by his attorney, "Are you able to walk?''4 Defendant answered, "About ten, fifteen feet, Commonwealth's Answer to the Bill of Particulars, filed December 21, 1999. Notes of Testimony 7/27/98 (hereinafter "N.T." p.7, line 1. 2 depending on what kind of day I am having.''5 Defendant was also asked by opposing counsel, "Do you have the ability to walk?''6 Defendant replied, "Yes. I use a walker at times. And I can walk ten to fifteen feet, sometimes even further, depending on how my legs are. There is [sic] days I wake up and my back is black and blue.''7 Two eyewitnesses both testified that defendant was able to walk more than ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in any given day. Additionally, a third eyewitness testified that he had saw defendant chasing children approximately 200 yards. At the support hearing, defendant testified that he was unable to lift more than ten (10) to fifteen (15) pounds at a time. Defendant was asked, "Do you have the ability to lift anything?''s Defendant answered, "No. Not anything more than ten or fifteen pounds at the most.''9 The Commonwealth produced evidence that defendant was in fact able to lift more than this amount at a given time. Witnesses testified that they had observed defendant lift more than ten (10) to fifteen (15) pounds. Moreover, witnesses testified that defendant was able to work on a roof, handling roofing equipment and carpentry equipment that weighed in excess of the amount defendant testified to. In addition, evidence presented at trial showed that defendant had a copying business in his home, in s N.T.p. 7, lines 2-3. 6 N.T.p. 12, lines 6-7. 7 N.T.p. 12, lines 8-11. 8 N.T.p. 12, line 15. 9N.T.p. 12, lines 16-17. which he lifted reams of paper that weighed more than ten (10) to fifteen (15) pounds. With respect to his employment and income, defendant testified that the last time he held employment was May or June of 1997 and his only source of income was from his social security check. Defendant was asked at the support hearing, "When did you last work?''~° Defendant answered, "June of last year.''~ Defendant was also asked, "1 believe you said the last time you were employed was in May or June of last year" to which he responded "Yeah.''~2 Another question posed to defendant was, "Is that your only income [social security]?''~3 Defendant responded yes. Again, defendant was asked, "Do you have any other source of income other than the $115.00 a month [social security income]?''~4 Defendant stated, "Just Monica living there, she pays most of the bills.''~5 It is clear that defendant made the aforementioned statements in an effort to evade support liability. The evidence showed, however, that defendant owned and operated a copier business in his home. The Commonwealth admitted into evidence a lease signed by defendant as well as various business forms attributed to him. Moreover, defendant maintained vending machines at various locations. As a result of these business activities, defendant received income. lo N.T.p.5, line 20. ~ N.T.p.5, line 21. ~2 N.T.p. 10, lines 9-11. ~ N.T.p. 8, line 10. ~4 N.T.p. 8, lines 24-25. 4 Although defendant does not state his reasons, he argues that the verdict is not supported by the weight of the evidence. We disagree. Absent a finding of abuse of discretion, the standard is whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence that justice requires the awarding of a new trial. Commonwealth v. Polk, 347 Pa. Super. 265, 269, 500 A.2d 825, 827 (1985). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Aulisio, 514 Pa. 84, 522 A.2d 1075 (1987). For a new trial to lie on a challenge that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court. Commonwealth v. Reardon, 374 Pa. Super 212, 542 A.2d 572 (1988). In the case before the Court, that did not happen. Where evidence offered is so unreliable and/or so contradictory that it renders any verdict based thereon as pure conjecture, justice requires that the jury not be permitted to return such a verdict. Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 60, 354 A.2d 545 (1976). We cannot say that the testimony of either Michael Rundle, Reynold Woof, Jr., Reynold Ridgeway Woof, III, or David Rudy was so unreliable or contradictory that a verdict could not be based upon it. In addition, where the ~5 N.T.p. 9, lines 1-2. evidence is legally sufficient, it generally meets the test for weightiness. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 351 Pa. Super. 309, 505 A.2d 997 (1986). Concluding that a rational consideration of the evidence was possible, we left the weight of the evidence for the jury to determine. See Commonwealth v. Levenson, 282 Pa. Super. 406, 422 A.2d 1355 (1980). The evidence in this case was positive and convincing, and was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of perjury.