Com. v. Talley, Q. ( 2016 )

J-S66022-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Appellant No. 1917 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001720-2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Appellant No. 1918 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001721-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED OCTOBER 31, 2016
Appellant, Quintez Talley, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on July 2, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County.
We affirm.
The Commonwealth charged Talley in criminal informations with one
count each of aggravated harassment by prisoner, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2703.1.
J-S66022-16
The counts arise from two separate incidents. The first stems from Talley’s
actions on June 5, 2014. On that date, the Commonwealth alleged that
Talley was an inmate at SCI Benner Township, housed in a psychiatric
observation cell. When Correctional Officer Thomas Suchta approached
Talley’s cell, Talley threw urine on him, soaking the officer from his head to
his toes. The other stems from Talley’s actions on June 18, 2014. On that
date, the Commonwealth alleged that Talley resided in the restricted housing
unit of the same correctional institution. When Correctional Officer Robert
Hewitt approached his cell, Talley splashed urine underneath the cell door,
soaking the officer’s boots, pants, and shirt.
The case proceeded to pre-trial matters. The Commonwealth filed
notice of its intention to consolidate and try the separate informations
together. Talley acted in his own defense with standby counsel. Talley filed a
slew of motions, including motions in limine and a motion to sever. The trial
court scheduled a hearing on the motions. On the day of the hearing,
however, Talley refused to participate. Citing Talley’s refusal to participate in
his own case, his standby counsel indicated that he would only address the
motions if the Commonwealth “do[es] something flat out wrong or
egregious.” N.T. Hearing, 4/29/15, at 8. The trial court and then the
Commonwealth then went through Talley’s motions. The trial court
ultimately denied all eleven motions.
-2-
J-S66022-16
Immediately prior to trial, Talley again advanced argument on some of
his motions in limine. The trial court acted with incredible patience in dealing
with Talley. See N.T., Trial, 5/6/15, at 3-32. Frustrated that the proceedings
were not going his way, Talley voluntarily absented himself from the trial.
The jury trial proceeded in his absence.
The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Correctional Officers
Suchta and Hewitt who both testified that Talley threw urine on them.
Correctional Officer Thomas Lykens testified that he observed Talley throw,
from a milk container, a liquid substance toward Correctional Officer Suchta.
He then heard Talley say to Correctional Officer Suchta, “I got you, man.”
N.T., Trial, 5/6/15, at 87. Talley asked Correctional Lykens if he got any on
him as his intended target was only Correctional Officer Suchta. And he
heard Talley taunt Correctional Officer Suchta later that day by asking him,
“[w]hy are you walking around with piss on your shirt[?]” Id., at 88. The
jury also saw surveillance footage of the incidents. And the Commonwealth
presented the testimony of Pennsylvania State Police forensic scientist
Gabriel Llinas who testified as an expert witness. Llinas stated that he
conducted tests on Correctional Officer Suchta’s pants and Correctional
Officer Hewitt’s shirt and obtained positive results for the presumptive
presence of urine on both items.
The jury quickly (it took just thirteen minutes of deliberation) returned
a verdict of guilty to two counts of aggravated harassment by prisoner.
-3-
J-S66022-16
The trial court later imposed an aggregate sentence of 4½ to 9 years’
imprisonment. Talley filed a post-sentence motion and a supplemental post
sentence motion, which the trial court denied after a hearing. This timely
appeal followed.
Talley first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
sever.
[A] motion for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial court, and ... its decision will not be disturbed absent a
manifest abuse of discretion. The critical consideration is
whether [the] appellant was prejudiced by the trial court’s
decision not to sever. [The a]ppellant bears the burden of
establishing such prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898, 901 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted) (alterations in original).
To address Talley’s challenge, we must determine:
[1] whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be
admissible in a separate trial for the other; [2] whether such
evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid
danger of confusion; and, if the answers to these inquiries are in
the affirmative; [3] whether the defendant will be unduly
prejudiced by the consolidation of offenses.
Commonwealth v. Boyle, 733 A.2d 633, 635 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation
omitted) (alterations in original). See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 582 and 583.
Accordingly, our first step is to determine whether the evidence
regarding each incident would be admissible in a separate trial for the other.
It is impermissible to present evidence at trial of a defendant’s prior bad acts
or crimes to establish the defendant’s criminal character or proclivities. See
-4-
J-S66022-16
Commonwealth v. Hudson, 955 A.2d 1031, 1034 (Pa. Super. 2008). Such
evidence, however, may be admissible “where it is relevant for some other
legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken the defendant’s
character.” Commonwealth v. Russell, 938 A.2d 1082, 1092 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citation omitted). The Rules of Evidence specifically provide that
“[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted for other
purposes, such as proving … intent … [the] absence of mistake, or lack of
accident.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
Here, we have little difficulty in concluding that the evidence of each
crime would be admissible in a separate trial for the other. The evidence of
each would be admissible as each incident was relevant to establish an
absence of mistake or accident by demonstrating that Talley intentionally
threw his urine on the correctional officers. Talley’s proposed defense to the
incident involving Correctional Officer Thomas Suchta was that he did this to
himself—that after urinating he “shook a little too hard.” N.T., Trial, 5/6/15,
at 10. See also id. (“Come on, he shook a little too hard.”) Evidence that
Talley also threw urine on Correctional Officer Hewitt would squarely refute
that defense.
The Commonwealth alleged that each incident was preceded by
Talley’s displeasure with the correctional officers: that Correctional Officer
Suchta did not feed Talley and that Talley was annoyed when Correctional
-5-
J-S66022-16
Officer Hewitt stopped by his cell to ask how he was. Thus, evidence of each
incident shows intent.
And, importantly, the evidence was not admitted merely to show
Talley acted in conformity with a character trait.
The next step is to determine whether joinder of the offenses for trial
posed a danger of confusing the jury. “Where a trial concerns distinct
criminal offenses that are distinguishable in time, space and the characters
involved, a jury is capable of separating the evidence.” Commonwealth v.
Collins, 703 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. 1997) (citation omitted). Here, the crimes
occurred at different times and involved different victims; there was no
danger of confusing the jury with evidence of each crime.
Finally, we must determine whether joinder of the offenses for trial
unfairly prejudiced Talley.
The “prejudice” of which Rule [583] speaks is not simply
prejudice in the sense that appellant will be linked to the crimes
for which he is being prosecuted, for that sort of prejudice is
ostensibly the purpose of all Commonwealth evidence. The
prejudice of which Rule [583] speaks is, rather, that which would
occur if the evidence tended to convict appellant only by showing
his propensity to commit crimes, or because the jury was
incapable of separating the evidence or could not avoid
cumulating the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Newman, 598 A.2d 275, 279 (Pa. 1991) (citation
omitted).
We can discern no unfair prejudice to Talley in joining the two offenses
for a single trial. In his brief, Talley methodically defines unfair prejudice and
-6-
J-S66022-16
then simply concludes that “[i]t is difficult to overstate the prejudice caused
by exposing the same jury to two separate allegations of throwing urine on
another person.” Appellant’s Brief, at 13. This conclusion in no way
establishes unfair prejudice. The burden is squarely on Talley and he fails to
establish unfair prejudice.
Talley next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion in
limine to preclude the Commonwealth from presenting evidence that he
called correctional officer Hewitt a “fucking cracker.” Id.1
In evaluating the denial … of a motion in limine, our standard of
review is well-settled. When ruling on a trial court’s decision to
grant or deny a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse
of discretion standard of review. A trial court has broad
discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible, and a
trial court’s ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not
be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest
unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or
such lack of support to be clearly erroneous. If the evidentiary
question is purely one of law, our review is plenary.
Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Talley maintains that this evidence, which he concedes was relevant,
see Appellant’s Brief, at 13, was unfairly prejudicial. Talley explained his
fear about this evidence:
____________________________________________
1
For an explanation of the meaning of this homonym, we refer the reader to
“The Secret History of the Word ‘Cracker,’” National Public Radio, available
at http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/01/197644761/word-
watch-on-crackers (accessed October 13, 2016).
-7-
J-S66022-16
I even have a motion where I just merely asked you can
we [sic] exclude the part where the COs are going to say that he
called them a cracker, and that was denied.
So I don’t know. I guess at a later date I’ll be able to
argue racial prejudice and all of that, but I don’t understand how
that motion was denied.
That’s a simple request where you’re going to have a CO
come before an all white [sic] jury and say in this room he called
me a cracker. Okay, lock him up.
In all honesty, I’m a little distraught at this point. I’m
coming before a white judge, a white jury, a white district
attorney, white State troopers. It’s not rocket science; my black
ass is about to get found guilty.
N.T., Trial, 5/6/15, at 8. In his brief, Talley states that evidence of the
epithet “fucking cracker” when he appeared “before an all-white jury” “was
particularly prejudicial.” Appellant’s Brief, at 13.
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice….” Pa.R.E. 403. “‘Unfair
prejudice’ means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to
divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence
impartially.” Id., Comment.
The Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence in this case:
The two victims testified, an eyewitness testified, the jury watched
surveillance videos, and an expert testified to the presumptive presence of
urine. Against this evidentiary background we cannot conclude that the use
of the racial epithet resulted was unfairly prejudicial. The trial court did not
-8-
J-S66022-16
abuse its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence
of Talley’s use of the epithet.
Lastly, Talley argues that the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to sustain the convictions “or, alternatively,” 2 that the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Brief, at 13. We disagree.
We begin with the sufficiency of the evidence.
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in
the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient
evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test,
we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for
the fact-finder. In addition, we 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. 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.
____________________________________________
2
The “or, alternatively,” language is key as Talley combined these two
distinct legal concepts into one issue: “A true weight of the evidence
challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but
questions which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911
A.2d 558, 566 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
-9-
J-S66022-16
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations
omitted).
Talley maintains that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the
substance thrown was urine as required for conviction under § 2703.1. Both
Correctional Officer Suchta and Correctional Officer Hewitt testified that
Talley threw a substance on them that, by smell, they immediately identified
as urine. See N.T., Trial, 5/6/15, at 77-79; 94-96. Correctional Officer
Thomas Lykens testified that he observed Talley throw, from a milk
container, a liquid substance toward Correctional Officer Suchta. See id., at
87. He then heard Talley say to Correctional Officer Suchta, “I got you,
man.” Id. Correctional Officer Lykens testified that Talley taunted
Correctional Officer Suchta by asking him, “[w]hy are you walking around
with piss on your shirt.” Id., at 88. Correctional Officer Lykens further
testified that Talley, who had no beef with him, expressed concern about
possibly hitting him in the attack, asking, “I didn’t get you, you sure I didn’t
get you[?]” Id., at 90. The jury watched surveillance footage of both
incidents. See id., at 80-82; 98-99. And the Commonwealth’s expert
witness testified that testing revealed the presumptive presence of urine on
Correctional Officer Suchta’s pants and Correctional Officer Hewitt’s shirt.
See id., at 121, 124.
- 10 -
J-S66022-16
We have very little difficulty in finding that the Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.3 We next address
Talley’s claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
The finder of fact is the exclusive judge of the weight of the evidence
as the fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
presented and determines the credibility of the witnesses. See
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003). As an
appellate court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the finder of
fact. See id. Therefore, we will reverse a jury’s verdict and grant a new trial
only where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense
____________________________________________
3
Talley argues in his brief that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the
substance was urine because the presumptive test “was arguably less
accurate than a PBT [preliminary breath test] (which can at least tell us that
alcohol, and not something else, was present)….” Appellant’s Brief, at 14.
There are serious flaws in this argument, which we need not address here.
Talley did not advance this argument, flawed as it is, in the court below. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). He lodged no objection to the expert’s testimony. We find
this claim waived.
This claim is at direct odds with Talley’s position in the trial court. In his
“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus/Motion to Quash,” filed when he was
proceeding pro se, Talley had no objection to the presumptive testing
procedure itself. For instance, Talley noted that such testing was the
“‘generally accepted’ standard” scientific test and that the presence of urine
“is usually proven by ‘presumptive testing.’” Motion, 4/23/15, at 2-3. He did
note that such testing had its “flaws,” which he did not detail. The final two
pages of his motion are a rambling discourse about how men urinate, what
was tested and what should have been tested, and the alleged late filing of
the serologist’s report, which he claimed warrants quashing of the evidence.
- 11 -
J-S66022-16
of justice. See Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 708 (Pa.
Super. 2004).
A verdict is said to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks
one’s sense of justice when “the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or
when “the jury’s verdict, at the time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to
lose his breath, temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench,
then it is truly shocking to the judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v.
Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted), aff’d,
938 A.2d 198 (Pa. 2007).
Furthermore,
where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an
appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying question
of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court
palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.
Champney, 832 A.2d at 408 (citation omitted).
The trial court found that the verdict did not shock its sense of justice.
We find no abuse of discretion with this conclusion. The figure of Justice is
firmly rooted to her pedestal in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 12 -
J-S66022-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/31/2016
- 13 -