Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-0902 CiminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. 902 CRIMINAL 1992 CHARGE: (A) WEAPONS OR IMPLEMENTS OF ESCAPE SAMUEL WILLIAMS AFFIANT: TPR. DANIEL WERTZ OTN: E073497-4 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST -TRIAL MOTION BEFORE SHEELY, P.J., and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this'8Aday of April, 1993, upon consideration of Defendant's Post - Trial Motion in Arrest of Judgment, and of the briefs presented in the matter, the Defendant's Motion is DENIED, a pre -sentence investigation report is ordered, and the Defendant is directed to appear for sentencing at the call of the District Attorney. BY THE COURT, V. Wesley Oler, J . Jeffrey Baxter, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Robert P. Kline, Esq. Attorney for Defendant :rc COMMONWEALTH V. SAMUEL WILLIAMS OTN: E073497-4 Oler, J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 902 CRIMINAL 1992 CHARGE: (A) WEAPONS OR IMPLEMENTS OF ESCAPE AFFIANT: TPR. DANIEL WERTZ IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST -TRIAL MOTION BEFORE SHEELY, P.J., and OLER J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT At issue in the present case is Defendant's post -trial motion in arrest of judgment following a jury verdict of guilty on a charge of possession of a weapon by an inmate.' The motion is based upon an alleged insufficiency of the evidence to show that the Defendant "unlawfully" possessed a weapon.2 On a defendant's post -trial motion in a criminal case, the sufficiency of the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner, drawing all proper inferences from the evidence in such light, and determining whether the finder of fact could reasonably have found that all the elements of the offense were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 521 Pa. 134, 143, 555 A.2d 818, 823 (1989). "Only where the evidence, when so viewed, is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the crimes charged is relief granted." Commonwealth v. Cody, 401 Pa. Super. 85, 88, 584 A.2d 992, 1 Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §5122(a)(2). a The weapon at issue in the instant matter was a shank, which is a homemade knife. Commonwealth v. Williams, No. 902 Criminal 1992, Trial Transcript, November 18-19,1992, N.T. 74-75 (hereinafter N.T. _). 902 CRIMINAL 1992 993 (1991). Moreover, it is the general rule that "[a] determination [as to the credibility of witnesses] is within the sole province of the trier of fact." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 475, 485 A.2d 1102, 1105 (1984). Accordingly, the relevant facts of the case may be stated as follows: On March 30, 1992, the Defendant, while an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, was involved in an incident during which inmate Ricky Brown was beaten and stabbed.' At various times throughout the course of the incident, the Defendant was observed by correctional officers to be in possession of a weapon.4 Correctional Officer Nick Rodites further testified that the prisoner's possession of a weapon was a violation of the "policies at the Camp Hill State Institution regarding possession of weapons by inmates."' Following a jury trial on November 18 and 19,1992, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a weapon by ' N.T. 16,19-21. 4 N.T. 16,19-21, 41-45, 74-76. s N.T. 77. Officer Rodites' testimony was as follows: Q Officer, are you familiar with the policies at the Camp Hill State Institution regarding possession of weapons by inmates? A Yes, I am. Q Are inmates at any time allowed to possess weapons or instruments that can cause bodily injury? A Not at all. Q At any time? Id. A At any time. They're not allowed. 902 CRIMINAL 1992 an inmate.' Defendant subsequently filed a post -trial motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The section of the Crimes Code' under which Defendant was charged provides, in pertinent part: "An inmate commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he unlawfully procures, makes or otherwise provides himself with, or unlawfully has in his possession or under his control, any weapon." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §l, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §5122(a)(2). "Unlawfully" is defined in Section 5122 as "surreptitiously or contrary to law, regulation or order of the detaining authority." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §l, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §5122(b)(1). Defendant argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element of the offense because the evidence introduced at trial "failed to prove that the possession of the [weapon] by the Defendant was `unlawful' as strictly defined by statute ....i8 Defendant does not dispute testimony introduced at trial regarding his possession of the weapon, but rather argues that "[n]either the jury, the court, or the Defendant were or have been made aware of a specific law, regulation, or order of the detaining authority that the Defendant's possession of the shank violated."' ' See note 1 supra. ' Act of December 6, 1972, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §001 et. seq. a Defendant's Brief in Support of Post -Trial Motions, at 2. s Id. at 3. 3 902 CRIMINAL 1992 In this regard, Defendant correctly asserts that an act of assembly which imposes penal sanctions for violations of its provisions must be strictly construed." "However, strict construction does not require that the words of a criminal statute be given their narrowest meaning or that the legislature's evident intent be disregarded." Commonwealth v. Gordon, 511 Pa. 481, 487, 515 A.2d 558, 561 (1986). In attempting to ascertain the meaning of a statute, the Court is required to consider the intent of the legislature and is permitted to examine the practical consequences of a particular interpretation. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 375 Pa. Super. 585, 544 A.2d 1384 (1988). The Court is not to assume that the legislature intended a result that is absurd or unreasonable. l l With respect to the word "policy," it has been said that, "[t]echnically, the term `policy' denotes something that has been officially adopted ...." Mariani v. City of Pittsburgh, 624 F. Supp. 506, 509 (W.D. Pa. 1986). By presenting testimony of a correctional officer at the state correctional institution where Defendant was imprisoned at the time of the alleged offense that under the institution's policies the possession of a weapon by an inmate was not allowed at any time, the Commonwealth adduced evidence from which the finder of fact could reasonably have found that the unlawfulness of Defendant's possession of a shank had been proven beyond a io Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, §3, 1 Pa. C.S. §1928(b)(1) (1992 Supp.). " Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, §3, 1 Pa. C.S. §1922(1) (1992 Supp.). 902 CRIMINAL 1992 reasonable doubt. For these reasons, the following Order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this% day of April, 1993, upon consideration of Defendant's Post - Trial Motion in Arrest of Judgment, and of the briefs presented in the matter, the Defendant's Motion is DENIED, a pre -sentence investigation report is ordered, and the Defendant is directed to appear for sentence at the call of the District Attorney. Jeffrey Baxter, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Robert P. Kline, Esq. Attorney for Defendant : rc BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. 5i