HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0229-2005
COMMONWEALTH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CP-21-CR-0229-2005
D'ROB SHONTEZ SANDERS
OTN: K086693-5
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925
On May 25,2004, the defendant, D'Rob Shontez Sanders, a prisoner at the State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, was being escorted back to his prison cell by Officers John
Britton, Todd Leedom, and Christopher Free, following a Program Review Committee session.
(Trial Tr. at 5.) The three officers claimed that while they were escorting Sanders back to his
cell, the defendant, despite being under restraints, elbowed Britton in the face and neck. (Id at 7,
39, 46.) The officers further claimed that after taking Sanders back to his cell, the defendant spit
on Britton. (Id.)
Defendant Sanders was later charged with one felony count of Aggravated Harassment
by a Prisoner, 18 Pa.C.S.A S 2703.1 (2000), and a Summary count of Harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A S
2709(a)(I) (2000). The case was held over for trial, and on July 13,2005, a jury of his peers
found him guilty on both counts. The defendant has appealed the jury's conviction, claming that
the jury lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.
Upon appeal of a jury verdict on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the role of
the reviewing court is extremely limited. It may only overturn the verdict when "the evidence is
so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the
CP-21-CR-0229-2005
combined circumstances." Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829, 835-36 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2004), quoting Commonwealth v. Lehman, 820 A.2d 766, 772 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). The jury's
verdict is given great deference, and it may not be overturned merely because an appellate court
disagrees with the jury's weighing of the evidence or its credibility determinations. Id Finally,
in examining the verdict, all the evidence is reviewed "in the light most favorable to the verdict
winner." Id. So long as the Commonwealth has presented sufficient evidence to find the
defendant guilty of each element of the crime, the verdict should stand.
To convict an individual of Aggravated Harassment by a Prisoner, the Commonwealth
must present sufficient evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant "intentionally or
knowingly" caused another person "to come into contact with... [his] saliva... by ... spitting...
such fluid or material." 18 Pa.C.S.A S 2703.1 (2000). To convict an individual of Harassment,
the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt the
defendant subjected another person to offensive physical contact. 18 Pa.C.S.A S 2709(a)(I)
(2000).
The Commonwealth clearly presented enough evidence to permit a jury to find the
defendant guilty of both charges. It had presented the testimony of three eyewitnesses who all
attested to the fact that Sanders did spit on Officer Britton, and that he struck him with his elbow.
See Trial Tr. at 7,39,46. Furthermore, the Commonwealth submitted into evidence the stained
shirt Officer Britton was wearing that day, and a serology report showing conclusively that the
stain was indeed human saliva. Id. at 9, 32. Although Sanders denied striking or spitting on
Officer Britton, Id. at 64-65, it was the jury's role to weigh the testimony and decide which side
2
CP-21-CR-0229-2005
is more credible. 1 The law, in fact, is so clear in this case as to suggest that the defendant's
appeal is frivolous. 2
November 30, 2005
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Ari D. Weitzman, Esquire
F or the Defendant
:rlm
1 The defense also presented allegations by Sanders and two other prisoners of prisoner abuse, allegations which did
result in an investigation. See Trial Tr. at 56-61,63.
2 Sander's counsel apparently agrees: he has notified the Court of his belief that this appeal is "wholly frivolous,"
and he intends to file an Anders brief with the Superior Court to that affect. See De! 's Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal at 1 n. 1.
3