Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001378-2010 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : : BARRY R. TANGERT, JR., : Defendant : NO. CP-21-CR-1378-2010 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OPINION and ORDER For consideration at this time is Defendant’s Post-Sentence Motion, filed April 8, 2011. (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720, filed Apr. 8, 2011). On December 29, 2009, Defendant was charged with three counts: (1) Threats and other improper influence in official and political matters, a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4702(a)(2); (2) Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101; and (3) Retaliation against prosecutor or judicial officer, a violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4953.1(a). A jury trial was held on January 31, 2011, and Defendant was found guilty of Count 2, Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, and not guilty of the remaining two counts. On March 29, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to probation for a term of fourteen months and directed to pay the costs of prosecution. Defendant timely filed the Post-Sentence Motion sub judice challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at trial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 606 and seeking a judgment of acquittal and discharge on Count 2, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101. The facts of this case may be summarized as follows. In July 2006, the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office received a report that a 15 year-old girl had been sexually assaulted by her mother’s boyfriend. (Notes of Testimony, 7-8, In Re: Jury Trial, Jan. 31, 2011 (hereinafter N.T. __)). First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating of Cumberland County and detectives from his office met with the victim whereupon the girl disclosed that she was having sex with her mother’s boyfriend, David Deck, and the two next door neighbors, a married couple, John and Traci Georgiadis. (N.T. 8). The victim also provided Keating with certain sex items, which she maintained were used on and with her, as well as a cassette tape of a phone conversation that she had between herself and David Deck in reference to having additional sexual relations. (N.T. 8). A friend of the victim had been confided in by the girl and was also interviewed by Keating and his detectives. (N.T. 7). The two gave descriptions of what had happened, and they described the Deck and Georgiatis homes. (N.T. 9) Based on this and other information provided by the victim and her friend, Keating applied for, received, and executed search warrants for both the Deck house and the Georgiadis house. (N.T. 9). Keating’s investigation proceeded, and, in July 2006, charges were filed against David Deck and John and Traci Georgiadis for crimes relating to the sexual abuse allegations that Keating had received from the 15 year-old victim. (N.T. 14). A motion to suppress certain evidence was heard, and the decision appealed, which caused a delay in the prosecution of those defendants. (N.T. 14-15). In July 2008, the Commonwealth decided to proceed with the trial rather than appeal again an adverse ruling on the defendants’ suppression motion. (N.T. 16). In August 2008, Defendant Barry R. Tangert, Jr. (hereinafter “Defendant”) first made contact with Keating regarding the case against Deck and the Georgiadises. (N.T. 16-17). At the trial against Defendant, from which Defendant has filed the Motion sub judice, Keating testified that on August 4, 2008, he received a phone call from a Pennsylvania State Trooper who identified himself as Trooper Tangert from the State Police, Harrisburg. (N.T. 16-17). Keating testified that Trooper Tangert stated that he wanted to talk about “a case,” but he did not want to discuss the matter over the phone; rather, Defendant stated that the matter was “sensitive” and that he would prefer to meet with Keating in person. (N.T. 17-18). Defendant appeared at the 2 District Attorney’s office the next day, identified himself as Trooper Tangert, and stated that he had an appointment with Jaime Keating. (N.T. 18-19). Keating testified that he invited Defendant into his office, as opposed to the conference room, because as Defendant was a member of law enforcement, there was inherently an air of trust between them. (N.T. 20). Indeed, Keating testified that he often spoke with police officers, albeit typically regarding cases with which the trooper is actively involved. (N.T. 21). Keating testified that once Defendant entered the office and the door was closed, Defendant began to discuss the details of the “Georgiadis” case. (N.T. 21). Keating testified that he was not immediately aware of which case Defendant had referenced; however, after Defendant recited a few details, Keating testified that he remembered the case at issue, and was immediately puzzled as to the nature of Defendant’s visit, as the case was being handled by Cumberland County detectives, rather than the State Police. (N.T. 22). Keating testified as follows: He told me first that he was friends with the Georgiadises. He said he was good friends with them. And that’s when I stopped him, and I told him, Look, I’m not in the habit of talking to friends or family of people who are charged with a crime. You know, because that’s not proper. So I’m not going to talk to you about the details of the case. I’m certainly not going to tell you how strong or weak my evidence is or what have you. So, you know, it’s not proper to talk to family members and friends about those types of things. (N.T. 22). Keating testified that, despite his warnings, Defendant continued with the purpose of his visit. (N.T. 23). Keating testified that Defendant stated as follows: [H]e started to explain to me why he thought David Deck was guilty, because the [suppressed evidence] clearly established that, but since he was friends with the Georgiadises, that they were innocent of the charges. And that if we went to trial against Deck, we might lose the case against Deck and that could be potentially very embarrassing for my office and for me personally. (N.T. 23-24). 3 Keating testified that he explained to Defendant that his own personal embarrassment was not his concern when prosecuting a case; rather, Keating desired the victim to have an opportunity to “tell her story before a jury.” (N.T. 24). Keating testified to Defendant’s response as follows: A: . . . At that point in time then he started to explain to me, well, you could jeopardize the case against David Deck if they find them not guilty, the Georgiadises, and he didn’t want them to be falsely convicted, which I found to be unusual. Q: And how did he suggest – what other way did he suggest to resolve the case favorably for the Georgiadises? A: . . . And so what he wanted me to do was, he wanted me to request the State Police to get involved with the case. And specifically what he wanted me to do was he wanted me to ask for help from the State Police so that he could interrogate – and that’s the word that stuck out in my mind. He wanted to interrogate the victim in this case, this 15 year-old girl, and get her – those are the words he used – get her to recant against the Georgiadises. He had mentioned something to the effect that he would threaten her with criminal charges like false reports or things of that nature and that way she would recant against the Georgiadises and I would be convinced of their innocence and I would dismiss the charges against the Georgiadises and only go against David Deck. (N.T. 24-25). Keating testified that he found Defendant’s request to utilize him as an interrogator to be “bizarre to say the least.” (N.T. 26). Keating stated that, at this point, he realized that he did not truly know who Defendant was, and he testified that he questioned the capacity in which Defendant was associated with the State Police, as the statements Defendant made were far outside the realm of any request he had ever received from a police officer in the past, particularly in such a personal capacity. (N.T. 26-27). Keating testified that he declined Defendant’s offer and, at this point, Defendant pulled out a piece of paper from his suit coat pocket. (N.T. 28). Keating testified that Defendant had created a list of reasons that Defendant felt the Georgiadises were innocent of the charges against them. (N.T. 28-29) (Commonwealth’s 4 Ex. 1, admitted Jan. 31, 2011). Before Defendant could present the list, Keating testified as to the following: Well, he just started to pull out this piece of paper, and he was going to hand it to me. And I said, Now, look, I don’t know what you’re about to hand me, because I didn’t know what it was at the time, but we’ve got rules about this. I’m telling you right now whatever you give me, I’m going to give to the defense for the Georgiadises and the Decks because that’s what I’m required to do. So if by giving me this piece of paper, that’s going to get you in trouble for interfering with this case one way or the other, don’t do it. If it’s evidence, give it to me because I want to consider it; but if it’s just your opinion about my case, don’t do it because I don’t want you to be viewed as interfering with a particular case one way or the other and you can get jammed up. (N.T. 29). Despite the warnings, Defendant handed the list over to Keating. (N.T. 30). The list contained what Defendant perceived to be problems and discrepancies with the case. (N.T. 30). Keating testified that when Defendant came to his office on August 5, 2008, the purpose of Defendant’s visit readily apparent: “it was very clear what he wanted me to do was get him involved so the charges would be dismissed against his friends. . . .” (N.T. 31). Keating testified that Defendant became agitated and upset when he refused to involve Defendant in the investigation and when Defendant realized that Keating would not be dismissing the charges against the Georgiadises. (N.T. 31-32). The meeting lasted approximately a half hour, and Keating showed Defendant out of his office. (N.T. 32). Keating testified that the next day, August 6, 2008, he received a phone call from Defendant, again wanting to discuss the Georgiadis prosecutions. (N.T. 32-33). Keating testified that Defendant called apologize as he stated that he had not been completely truthful the day before. (N.T. 33). Keating testified that Defendant admitted that he was more than simply a friend to Traci Georgiadis. (N.T. 33). Indeed, Defendant proclaimed Traci Georgiadis to be his “soul mate” and admitted that he was involved in an affair with her; as a result of his affection 5 for Traci Georgiadis, Defendant informed Keating that he had subsequently met with the Georgiadises to discuss the meeting that Defendant had with Keating the day before. (N.T. 34). Keating testified that he informed Defendant that he should not have contact with them, as it is inappropriate for the police to interview people who are represented by counsel and awaiting trial. (N.T. 34). During the August 6th phone conversation, Keating testified that Defendant again became upset and angered that Keating still believed the juvenile female victim even after having read Defendant’s list of perceived issues with the case. (N.T. 34-35). Keating testified that this frustration led to Defendant’s assertion that “he couldn’t believe that [Keating] still believed her after reading [the list] and he felt that he had to do something drastic.” (N.T. 35). When Keating pressed Defendant on the meaning of “something drastic,” Keating testified that Defendant replied, “. . .you know, like go to the press or something. . . . I feel like I have to do something drastic. I feel like I have to do something.” (N.T. 35). Keating testified that, after the second phone call with Defendant, he became concerned for the juvenile victim. (N.T. 38). As a result, Keating testified that he contacted the county detective and informed him as to the nature of the meeting and conversations he had with Defendant. (N.T. 38-39). Keating testified that he was concerned that Defendant might direct his frustration towards her in an attempt to get her to recant her allegations against the Georgiadises. (N.T. 38-39). Keating testified that the following day, August 7, 2008, he received a phone call from Sergeant Mark Crossen of the Pennsylvania State Police in Harrisburg. (N.T. 39). Sgt. Crossen informed Keating that Defendant had just left his office, and that Defendant had stated his intent to arrest Keating and charge him with violations of “the Wire Tap Act. . .Reckless Endangering 6 of Children, Obstruction of Justice, and all that sort of thing.” (N.T. 40). Keating testified that Sgt. Crossen informed him that Defendant “prepared paperwork for it and he ran you and he has your information.” (N.T. 40). Keating stated that, as a prosecutor, he realized this to mean that Defendant had obtained his name, date of birth, social security number, home address, vehicle description, and certain other personal information not readily available to the public. (N.T. 40). Additionally, Keating testified as to his concerns for his family, as Defendant would have had the opportunity to view photographs while in Keating’s office. (N.T. 41). Later that same day, Keating testified that he received a phone call from Lieutenant Scott Miller of the Pennsylvania State Police. (N.T. 43). Keating testified that Lt. Miller confirmed that Defendant had typed and prepared paperwork for Keating’s arrest. (N.T. 43). Additionally, however, Lt. Miller informed Keating that Defendant was being removed from the building and removed as a trooper, pending a psychiatric evaluation. (N.T. 43-44). Keating testified that, as a safety precaution, the Pennsylvania State Police in Carlisle and the Carlisle Borough Police began to engage in patrols around Keating’s neighborhood. (N.T. 44). Keating testified that Defendant’s intent in all of his contacts with Keating was to cause the criminal charges against the Georgiadises to be dismissed. (N.T. 31). Keating testified that defendant “was angry because he wasn’t getting his way. We weren’t going to dismiss the charges based on his perceived problems with my case.” (N.T. 38). Testimony was also heard from Major Stephen Oliver McDaniel (Ret.), Corporal Nicholas Chimienti, Sergeant Mark Crossan, Lieutenant Scott T. Miller, and Lieutenant Kathy Jo Winterbottom, all of the Pennsylvania State Police. (N.T. 75, 86, 109, 131, 151). Maj. McDaniel testified that during the time period in question he was the Commander of Area 1 of the Pennsylvania State Police, and, in 2008, he was approached by Defendant whereupon Defendant 7 informed him that “the [Deck and Georgiadis] investigation was not being handled properly, and he wanted to know if the State Police could get involved.” (N.T. 79). Maj. McDaniel testified that he responded as follows: “And I stopped him there and I said, Trooper Tangert. . . I said whatever this is, you don’t need to be involved in it. You need to stay out of it. The State Police can’t get involved in it unless they’re requested by the investigating agency or District Attorney’s office.” (N.T. 79-80). Maj. McDaniel testified that, despite his warnings, Defendant continued to express his concerns; the major testified as follows: He didn’t get into any specifics of the case but discussed that he really felt that the victim in the case was not being truthful, and he felt that if he were given the opportunity to speak with this individual, he could certainly help - - they could be made to change their story and tell the truth. I said stop right there. You are clearly going to be in violation of department regulations if you do anything like that, and you’re going to be running really close to breaking the law because you’re talking about a witness and/or victim and having them change either sworn or unsworn, because I didn’t know where the case was at that point, testimony or statements. And I said that’s clearly interfering with an ongoing investigation where it’s not our investigation. It could be obstruction. It’s definitely a violation of department regulations. Stay out of it. (N.T. 80). Additionally, Cpl. Nicolas Chimienti testified that, on August 7, 2008, Defendant requested urgent meeting, and later that same day they met. (N.T. 88-89). Cpl. Chimienti testified that Defendant stated to him that friends were being “wrongfully accused of a crime,” and Defendant claimed that “Cumberland County investigator” Jaime Keating was “withholding information regarding this investigation.” (N.T. 90). With this backdrop, Defendant requested Cpl. Chimienti “to look into this case. He wanted to know if I or we, the way he said it, if we could look into this case . . . . [H]e was pleading with me to look into this case.” (N.T. 90). Cpl. Chimienti further testified that Defendant showed him a piece of paper with a list of his findings 8 in the case and very clearly “wanted us to do the investigation, wanted us to get involved with this investigation.” (N.T. 91). Cpl. Chimienti testified that a meeting with Sgt. Crossan was held that same day, and thereupon Cpl. Chimienti first learned that Jaime Keating was, in fact, an Assistant District Attorney in Cumberland County. (N.T. 95-96). At this time, Cpl. Chimienti testified that he witnessed Sgt. Crossan “order Trooper Tangert not to do anything more with regard to this case. . . .” (N.T. 96). Additionally, Cpl. Chimienti testified that Defendant “had compiled a list of charges that he was looking to charge this investigator. He actually said that he intended to charge him or that he was just simply investigating and those were charges that he was looking at.” (N.T. 99). Cpl. Chimienti testified, however, that he became certain of Defendant’s intent to arrest Keating after reviewing the paperwork Defendant had drafted. (N.T. 99). Sgt. Mark Crossan also testified consistently with the statements of the above-listed witnesses. (N.T. 108). Sgt. Crossan testified that he met with Defendant and Cpl. Chimienti on August 7, 2008, and that Defendant produced a piece of paper with alleged inadequacies of the prosecution of the Deck and Georgiadis cases. (N.T. 111-12). Based on these perceived inadequacies, Defendant requested the “back up” of the Pennsylvania State Police and “permission to go interview the victim, the 15-year old child in that case, because he knows that she was lying.” (N.T. 113). Additionally, Sgt. Crossan testified that Defendant “wanted me to assign one of my investigators to an interview to also try to discredit her.” (N.T. 114). Sgt. Crossan testified that he informed Defendant that the State Police could not get involved in the case, and that he was not to have contact with the child. (N.T. 114). Furthermore, Sgt. Crossan testified consistently with the statements of Cpl. Chimienti with regard to Defendant’s intent to arrest Keating. (N.T. 115). He testified that Defendant presented a document that was “a list of 9 charges which he said he had drafted and that he wanted to file against Jaime Keating.” (N.T. 115). The document contained Jaime Keating’s name, home address, social security number, operator’s license, date of birth, eye color, and height. (N.T. 115). Sgt. Crossan testified that the crimes contained on the paper were quite serious felonies, and that the only way in which Defendant could have obtained Keating’s information would have been to run it through JNET, a justice network, or the CLEAN system, which is a system only available to certain authorized persons. (N.T. 116-17). With regard to the specific crimes with which Defendant sought to charge Keating, Sgt. Crossan testified that, after reviewing the prepared list, he determined that there existed “no probable cause [to believe] that Mr. Keating had committed any of these offenses based on what was written here or otherwise.” (N.T. 117). Sgt. Crossan also testified to Defendant’s stated intent in preparing the charges: Trooper Tangert told me that he had a plan that District Attorney Keating had by Monday to decide whether he was going to appeal that Commonwealth versus Deck case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and that his plan was that he was going to take these charges to District Justice Placey’s Office and file them against Jaime Keating. And that according to his plan then, District Justice Placey would call Jaime Keating and advise him about this in order to avoid the embarrassment of being arrested, that he would drop the appeal of the case. . . . His goal was to have Jaime not appeal the case so that the Georgiadises would not be found or there would be no further charges against them. (N.T. 117-18). Lieutenant Scott T. Miller also testified consistently with the above-described description of events. (N.T. 131). Lt. Miller testified that he met with Defendant, after being informed by Sgt. Crossan of Defendant’s intentions and designs, and that Defendant had stated to him that he had called Keating to arrange a meeting after identifying himself as a Pennsylvania State 10 Trooper. (N.T. 136). Furthermore, Lt. Miller testified that, based on Defendant’s job description as a procurement and supply officer, and the fact that the case was not being investigated by the Pennsylvania State Police, that it was “inappropriate” for Defendant to contact the District Attorney and identify himself as Trooper Barry Tangert. (N.T. 136-37). Lt. Miller also testified that there would be “no reason at all for Trooper Tangert to have that [personal] information regarding Assistant District Attorney Keating.” (N.T. 141). Finally, Lt. Miller testified that, based on what Sgt. Crossan had told him and after viewing the document drafted by Defendant, he “immediately” had concerns for Keating’s welfare. (N.T. 145). As a result, Lt. Miller testified that he felt Defendant needed to be “immediately removed from duty as a Pennsylvania State Trooper.” (N.T. 145). Lastly, it is noted that Defendant did testify at trial on his own behalf. (N.T. 163). Defendant testified that all of his actions were done as a result of his “concerns about the case.” (N.T. 164). Defendant testified that he truly believed that the Georgiadis had not committed the crimes with which they had been charged. (N.T. 164). Defendant testified that he contacted Keating because he believed that Keating “just didn’t see all the things that I had seen and that if [Keating] had looked at them, he would see the credibility issues with [the victim] and that he would understand what I believe was that this was a girl who was crying out for help.” (N.T. 168). Furthermore, it was Defendant’s testimony that he never threatened Keating, and that his overall purpose in all he had done was merely to express his perceived concerns with the Georgiadis’ prosecution, and it was his sincere desire “[t]o see justice done. . . .” (N.T. 171, 179). At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found guilty of Count 2, Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, and not guilty of the remaining two 11 counts. Defendant was sentenced to probation for a term of fourteen months and directed to pay the costs of prosecution. Defendant subsequently filed the Post-Sentence Motion sub judice challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at trial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 606 and seeking a judgment of acquittal and discharge on Count 2, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101. A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted “only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding that charge.” Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 2008 PA Super , 82, ¶ 17, 947 A.2d 800, 805–06, appeal denied 602 Pa. 663, 980 A.2d 606 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 2006 PA Super 309, ¶ 5, 911 A.2d 162, 165); Commonwealth v. Foster, 2011 WL 3850026, 2 (Pa. Super. 2011). When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, the test is “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have determined all the elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Comomwealth v. O'Bryon, 2003 PA Super 139, ¶ 7, 820 A.2d 1287, 1290 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hagan, 539 Pa. 609, 613, 654 A.2d 541, 543 (1995)). In applying the standard, a court “may not weigh the evidence and substitute [its] judgment for the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v. Quel, 2011 PA Super 179, 27 A.3d 1033, 1037 (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 2011 PA Super 67, 23 A.3d 544, 559-60). The Superior Court has expounded upon the standard as follows: [W]e 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. 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. 12 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. Andrulewicz, 2006 PA Super 309, ¶ 5, 911 A.2d at 165 (quoting Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 2001 PA Super 238, ¶ 19, 782 A.2d 574, 582). The crime of Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function is defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101 as follows: A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty, or any other unlawful act, except that this section does not apply to flight by a person charged with crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101. Thus, the crime above consists of two elements: 1) an intent to obstruct the administration of law; and 2) an act of “affirmative interference with governmental functions.” Id.; Commonwealth v. Gentile, 433 Pa. Super. 381, 385, 640 A.2d 1309, 1312 (1994). Intent, within the ambit of §5101, has been defined to include “intentional, albeit unsuccessful, attempts to influence, obstruct, or delay the administration of law.” Gentile, 433 Pa. Super. at 385, 640 A.2d at 1312 (quoting Commonwealth v. Trolene, 263 Pa. Super. 263, 270, 397 A.2d 1200, 1201 (1979)). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant violated 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5101. The evidence on the record demonstrates that Defendant engaged in multiple “intentional, albeit unsuccessful,” attempts to obstruct or, at a minimum, influence, the administration of law. Testimony was heard from more 13 than one witness that Defendant’s stated purpose in acting as he did was to cause the charges to be dismissed against his friends, the Georgiadises. Testimony was also heard that his goal was to have Keating “not appeal the case so that the Georgiadises would not be found or there would be no further charges against them.” The jury as the trier of fact was presented with this and an abundance of other relevant testimony by which as they could have determined Defendant’s intent. In regard to the second element of the crime, by its own terms §5101 includes the breach of official duty as within the type of conduct described as an “affirmative interference with governmental functions.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §1501. More than one witness testified that Defendant was warned that approaching Keating and seeking to interrogate the 15 year-old victim, all while presenting the appearance of a “Pennsylvania State Trooper,” was clearly a violation of State Police regulations and duties. Moreover, the acts of approaching his superiors in an attempt to wrongfully involve the Pennsylvania State Police, the act of obtaining Keating’s personal information, and the act of drafting prospective charges with which to charge Keating, all combined with the stated purpose of influencing the Commonwealth’s case, could have lead the jury to the reasonable conclusion that Defendant’s actions were affirmative interferences with 1 governmental functions. Based upon this and all other testimony heard, we find that the jury could have determined all the elements of the crime of Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal will be denied, and the following order will be entered: 1 Additionally, it is irrelevant why the jury found Defendant not guilty of the remaining two counts, and that determination makes no impact on our analysis today. See Commonwealth v. Rakowski, 2010 PA Super 3, ¶ 16, 987 A.2d 1215, 1220 (“In this jurisdiction, inconsistent verdicts are not a basis for reversal. In fact, this Court has held that a conviction of conspiracy, even when coupled with an acquittal of the underlying over act of conspiracy, will not be reversed provided the facts are sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.”) (internal citations omitted). 14 ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Post- Sentence Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, filed April 8, 2011, and for the reasons contained in the accompanying opinion, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. 15 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : : BARRY R. TANGERT, JR., : Defendant : NO. CP-21-CR-1378-2010 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s Post- Sentence Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, filed April 8, 2011, and for the reasons contained in the accompanying opinion, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, __________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Jonelle H. Eshbach, Esquire Sr. Deputy Attorney General Bart W. Holmes, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm