Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2414 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH Vo IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARGE: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING LISA MANSFIELD- RIDGE OTN: Hl137721 NO. 00-2414 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., October 2, 2001. In this criminal case, Defendant was found guilty following a non-jury trial of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking, a misdemeanor of the first degree. ~ She was sentenced on August 28, 2001.2 Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on September 12, 2001.3 The grounds for the appeal have been set forth in Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal as follows: 1. The Court erred in refusing to grant Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. ~ Order of Court, July 23,2001. : Order of Court, August 28, 2001. Defendant's prior record included convictions for driving under the influence, theft by deception, forgery, and several violations pertaining to possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. Court's Exhibit 1, Sentencing Hearing, August 28, 2001. In this case, she received a standard range sentence of not less than three months nor more than 23 months in the Cumberland County Prison, with credit to be given for 14 days previously served, and with a direction that she pay the costs of prosecution and make restitution to the victim. Order of Court, August 28, 2001. The sentence was modified on August 31, 2001, pursuant to a motion of Defendant, to permit her admission into the prison's work release program. Order of Court, August 31,2001. ~ Notice of Appeal, filed September 12, 2001. The notice of appeal states that it is from an order of court dated September 5,2001. In that order, the court declined Defendant's motion to modify the sentence to reduce the minimum period of imprisonment to one of time-served. See Defendant's [Second] Motion To Modify Sentence, filed August 31,2001. 2. The Court erred in finding Defendant guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking or disposition.4 This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS The test for sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case has been stated by the Pennsylvania Superior Court as follows: The test to be applied in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which, if believed, the trier of fact could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime or crimes with which he has been charged. As with all challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the Commonwealth. 5 The Commonwealth is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence,6 and the trier-of-fact is free to believe "all, part or none of the evidence presented.''7 Viewed in this light, the evidence in the present case may be summarized as follows. On Tuesday, October 10, 2000, at about 6:00 a.m. Defendant was walking on High Street in the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.8 She was picked up by the victim in this case, a 49-year-old male who was driving by, and arrangements were made for her to provide him with oral sex in return for $30. They had not been previously acquainted.9 4 Defendant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed September 17, 2001. 5 Commonwealth v. Barnes, 310 Pa. Super. 480, 482-83, 456 A.2d 1037, 1038 (1983). 6 Commonwealth v. Gease, 548 Pa. 165, 169, 696 A.2d 130, 132 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 935, 118 S. Ct. 343, 139L. Ed. 2d266 (1997). 7 Commonwealth v. Tare, 485 Pa. 180, 182, 401 A.2d 353,354 (1979). 8 N.T. 75, Trial, July 23,2001 (hereinafter N.T. __). 9 N.T. 4-6. 2 The victim drove Defendant to his home in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, which was about three miles from the borough, l0 During the encounter, Defendant was paid the agreed-upon price for the sex act; in the process of payment, Defendant could see that the victim had cash on his person. She also obtained the victim's phone number from him. ~2 On that day, Defendant owed money to a certain drug dealer in Carlisle named William King. After the victim had driven Defendant back to Carlisle from his house, she met Mr. King and told him that she knew where she could get some money.~3 At about 3:00 that afternoon, she and Mr. King obtained a ride to Defendant's house from someone neither would identify.TM Mr. King accompanied Defendant because he wanted money. The victim and Mr. King had not previously been acquainted. ~5 Defendant, Mr. King and the victim consumed alcohol at the house. After about two hours, the victim told Defendant, who was sitting on a chair in the kitchen, and Mr. King that it was time for them to leave because he had to get up early for work the following day.~6 Mr. King maneuvered himself behind the victim and struck him on the head with a heavy cooking pot which he had picked up from the sink. Mr. King then struck the victim with the pot on the other side of the head.~7 The victim cried, "What the hell are you doing?" and Mr. King responded, "I want your money." He then struck the victim again with the pot, breaking the l0 N.T. 6, 28, 31. ~ N.T. 6, 39. ~2 N.T. 18. ~3 N.T. 52-53. 14 N.T. 19, 52-53, 78-79. ~5 N.T. 6-7, 52-53, 79. 16 N.T. 7-8, 22. ~v N.T. 8-9. 3 victim's shoulder. The victim lost consciousness,la At some point, either Mr. King or Defendant ripped the victim's phone from the wall. 19 During the course of the incident, the victim was told by Mr. King to hand over his money. The victim said, "No, I won't," and Mr. King seized his wallet from his person, extracting the money from it, and additionally seized cash which the victim was carrying in two other pants pockets and keys. The total amount of cash taken was between $200 and $250.20 When the victim ultimately regained consciousness, Mr. King was holding a butcher's knife, which had been in the kitchen, and ordered the victim "to run us back to Carlisle." When the victim said, "No, I ain't," Mr. King said, "I will slash you up." The victim acquiesced and proceeded to transport Defendant and Mr. King to Carlisle.2~ During the ride, Defendant told the victim that she would pay him back.22 In a subsequent interview with police, Defendant admitted that Mr. King "gave [her] an indication he was going to take the money from the man, meaning [the victim]." At trial, Defendant testified, inter alia, that "I am not sure exactly what I meant by that statement at the time.''23 As noted, following the non-jury trial the court found Defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking. Mr. King was found guilty of various charges, including robbery. During the trial, at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Defendant made a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficiency of 18 N.T. 9. 19 N.T. 13, 64. 2o N.T. 10-12. 21 N.T. 12-13. 22 N.T. 38. 23 N.T. 84. 4 the evidence. The motion was denied.24 Following denial of the motion, both Defendant and Mr. King presented evidence in the form of their own testimony.25 DISCUSSION Statement of Law Motion for judgment of acquittal. An appeal does not lie from a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal (formerly known as a demurrer~6) made at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, where the defendant has proceeded to present evidence following the denial of the motion. Commonwealth v. Zambolli, 695 A.2d 848, 849 n. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 522 Pa. 297, 315, 561 A.2d 719, 728 (1989). Sufficiency of the evidence. As previously noted, "[t]he test to be applied in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which, if believed, the trier of fact could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime.., with which he has been charged." Barnes, 310 Pa. Super. at 482-83, 456 A.2d at 1038 (1983). Conspiracy is defined in the Crimes Code as follows: A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or 24 N.T. 45-47. 25 To the extent that this testimony was exculpatory, the court did not find it credible. 26 See Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 606(A)(1) and comment (noting that change in terminology "is not intended to change Pennsylvania law."). 5 of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, 31, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a). No person may be convicted of conspiracy in the absence of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators. Id, §903(e). A conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Dancy, 437 Pa. Super. 462, 469, 650 A.2d 448, 451 (1994). "Among the circumstances which are relevant but not sufficient by themselves, to prove a corrupt confederation are: (1) an association between alleged conspirators; (2) knowledge of the commission of the crime; (3) presence at the scene of the crime; and (4) in some situations, participation in the object of the conspiracy. The presence of such circumstances may furnish a web of evidence linking an accused to an alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt when viewed in conjunction with each other and in the context in which they occurred." Commonwealth v. Swerdlow, 431 Pa. Super. 453, 460, 636 A.2d 1173, 1177 (1994) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lamb, 309 Pa. Super. 415, 429, 455 A.2d 678, 685-86 (1983)). The fact that one alleged coconspirator may not have been charged with the conspiracy does not preclude a conviction of the other. Cf Commonwealth v. Campbell, 539 Pa. 212, 651 A.2d 1096 (1994) (holding that acquittal of one co- conspirator does not serve to invalidate conviction of other). The crime of theft by unlawful taking is defined, in pertinent part, in Section 3921(a) of the Crimes Code as follows: A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, 31, 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3921(a). Application of Law to Facts In the present case, a combination of circumstances led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had conspired with Mr. King 6 to steal money from the victim. These included the fact that Defendant owed Mr. King money, that Defendant became aware shortly prior to the offense that the victim was carrying cash on his person, that Defendant advised Mr. King that money could be obtained from the victim, that Defendant facilitated an encounter with the victim by accompanying Mr. King to the victim's residence and gaining access thereto, that Mr. King went to the residence for the purpose of obtaining money, that Defendant was in the company of Mr. King as he beat and robbed the victim at the residence, that either Defendant or Mr. King ripped Defendant's phone from the wall, that Defendant and Mr. King left the residence together with the stolen money by means of a ride coerced from the victim at knifepoint, that during the ride Defendant stated that she wanted to pay the money back to the victim, and that Defendant subsequently admitted to police that Mr. King had given her an indication that he was going to take money from the victim. In determining the import of this combination of circumstances, the court was not obligated to accept as true the exculpatory (and often conflicting) explanations and denials related to the circumstances provided in the testimony of Defendant and Mr. King. For the foregoing reasons, it is believed that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilty as to the charge against Defendant of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking or disposition. Accordingly, it is also believed that the judgment of sentence was properly entered. BY THE COURT, Jaime Keating, Esq. Chief Deputy District Attorney Jessica B. Rhoades, Esq. Assistant Public Defender J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 7