Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002182-2012 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : JASON ANDREW DOUGHTY : CP-21-CR-2182-2012 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Masland, J., July 30, 2013:-- On March 19, 2013, following a two-day trial, a jury found Jason Andrew Doughty, (Defendant) guilty of Count 1 Intimidation of Witnesses or Victim and Count 2 Simple Assault. The court found Defendant guilty of Count 4 Harassment. Following his sentencing on May 7, 2013, the Defendant filed this timely appeal contending that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction of Count 1. I. Facts On June 30, 2012 Defendant and his wife, Misha Doughty, had a physical 1 altercation in their backyard. During the altercation, Defendant struck Mrs. Doughty, 2 causing her to fall to the ground. Defendant then attempted to pull her into the 34 residence. Consequently, Defendant was arrested for this conduct. Following the arrest, but prior to the preliminary hearing, Defendant made numerous phone calls to 1 Notes of Testimony, March 18, 2103, at 49. 2 Id. 3 N.T. March 18, 2013, at 55, 65-66, 74. 4 N.T. March 19, 2013 at 154. CP-21-CR-2182-2012 5 his wife from Cumberland County Prison. Mrs. Doughty did not answer these phone 6 calls stating that they made her angry. The lynchpin to the Commonwealth’s case was the recorded phone call 7 Defendant placed to his father. During this conversation, Defendant ordered his father to communicate several directives to his wife, and at one point in their conversation his father called Mrs. Doughty on another phone, effectively creating a 3-way 8 conversation. In his desire to ensure their stories matched, the Defendant insisted that his wife tell the Magisterial District Judge that she refuses to testify, that she made a 9 mistake, that she bit her lip and was not struck, and that she refuses to press charges. Furthermore, Defendant insisted that his father relay to his wife that if she did not tell the 10 authorities these facts, he was going away for two years and would starve and lose 11 everything. As icing on the cake, he repeated forcefully “You have to [say these 12 things] for our marriage!” Notably, the arresting officer, Timothy Lazzarevich, testified that Mrs. Doughty did not indicate to him that she wanted to drop the charges or that 13 she would not testify until after the 3-way phone conversation. II. Standard of Review The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed 5 N.T. March 19, 2013 at 139, 144, 168. 6 N.T. March 18, 2013, at 144. 7 Com. Ex. 4. We respectfully suggest that even if the Commonwealth had no other grist for the mill, the Defendant’s words and his tone produced a bumper crop that would feed a multitude. We have shared only a taste of Defendant’s tirade. In fact, we would not be offended if this Honorable Court skipped over our words and went directly to Commonwealth Exhibit 4. 8 Com. Ex. 4, at 11:27-16:42. 9 Com. Ex. 4, at 4:41-4:59, 8:37-8:52, 10:46-10:54, 11:58-12:19, 17:41-17:51. 10 Com. Ex. 4, at 9:26-9:31, 12:42-12:48, 18:26-18:36, 18:42-19:01. 11 Com. Ex. 4, at 18:42-19:01. 12 Com. Ex. 4, at 13:38-13:42. 13 N.T. March 19, 2013, at 171. -2- CP-21-CR-2182-2012 in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Strouse, 909 A.2d 368, 268-69 (Pa. Super. 2006). The Commonwealth does not need to preclude every possibility of innocence or establish the defendant’s guilt to a mathematical certainty. Commonwealth v. Brotherson, 888 A.2d 901, 904 (Pa. Super. 2005). The finder of fact exclusively weighs the evidence, assesses the credibility of witnesses, and may choose to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2011) (internal citations omitted). III. Analysis A person is guilty of intimidation of a witness or victim if, in pertinent part, he acts: [w]ith the intent to or with the knowledge that his conduct will obstruct, impede, impair, prevent or interfere with the administration of criminal justice, [and] intimidates or attempts to intimidate any witness or victim to: . . . (3) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing relating to the commission of a crime from any law enforcement officer, prosecuting official or judge. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952. Important to our analysis is the fact that, “actual intimidation of a witness is not an essential element of the crime.” Commonwealth v. Collington, 615 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1992). Therefore, accepting the victim’s flimsy protestation that she was merely upset by the Defendant’s actions, but never intimidated, does not end our analysis. Rather, “the crime is committed if one, with the necessary mens rea ‘attempts’ to intimidate a witness or victim.” Id. Significantly, the Commonwealth is not required to prove mens rea by direct evidence, and, as in all cases, may rely on circumstantial evidence. Id. -3- CP-21-CR-2182-2012 The mens rea requirement is knowingly or, that given his conduct, “he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” 18 Pa. C.S. § 302(b)(2). Here, Defendant berated his wife, directly and indirectly, to not testify against him 14 and to be untruthful to the Magisterial District Judge. In doing so, Defendant attempted to have his wife withhold testimony and information from a judge, which would obstruct, impede, impair, prevent, or interfere with the administration of criminal justice relating to Defendant’s offenses, as Mrs. Doughty was the key witness to the events. Based on this, it is clear that the jury simply did not believe the Defendant or his witnesses. In the end, Defendant’s conversation with his father was damning on several 15 levels. The entire conversation demonstrates that Defendant intentionally and knowingly attempted to intimidate Mrs. Doughty. There is simply no other way to parse his words or his invective. Ultimately, Defendant’s communications had their intended effect -- Mrs. Doughty informed the arresting officer that she would not testify and did not want to press charges. Manifestly, the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant knowingly attempted to intimidate Mrs. Doughty into not testifying and being untruthful to a judge. IV. Conclusion This Court concludes that the evidence admitted at trial by the Commonwealth was sufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant was 14 Defendant acknowledged the untruthfulness of his plan by stating repeatedly that the worst thing the victim would face for lying is a false statement charge, for which he would pay the fine. 15th The Defendant was not charged with a violation of the 6 Commandment; however, his appalling treatment of his father unavoidably affected the court’s view of Defendant’s story and most likely impacted the jurors as well. Regardless of one’s view of Mosaic Law, the Defendant’s words alone, cleansed of his attitude, were sufficient to prove his guilt. -4- CP-21-CR-2182-2012 guilty of intimidation of a witness or victim. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Matthew P. Smith, Esquire Office of the District Attorney Dirk E. Berry, Esquire For Defendant -5-