Com. v. Queen, L. ( 2019 )

J-S19023-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LAVAR J. QUEEN, :
:
Appellant. : No. 657 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 15, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008389-2016.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 29, 2019
Lavar J. Queen appeals from his judgment of sentence imposed after
the trial court found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter and possessing an
instrument of crime.1 After careful review, we affirm on the trial court’s
opinion.
The facts are fully set forth in the trial court’s opinion. Briefly, we note
that Queen’s convictions arose out of a meeting between Queen and his
partner, Troy Williams. While Queen was performing a sex act on Williams,
Queen claimed that Williams pulled out a knife and tried to stab him. Queen
overtook Williams and gained control of the knife. Queen stabbed Williams
six times, including in his jugular vein and chest, causing him to bleed
severely. The two tussled and eventually fell to the ground with Queen landing
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503 and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907.
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S19023-19
on top of Williams. Queen then stood up, and, although Williams was not
moving, Queen kicked Williams in the head. When the police arrived, Queen
was covered in blood, holding a knife. Williams died shortly after arriving at
the hospital. Queen only suffered a minor cut on his thumb. Queen was
arrested and charged.
Following a bench trial, the court found Queen guilty of voluntary
manslaughter and possessing an instrument of crime; the court found him not
guilty of murder. Queen was sentenced to five to ten years of incarceration
for voluntary manslaughter and three to twelve months of incarceration for
possessing an instrument of crime to run consecutively.
Queen timely appealed. The trial court and Queen complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Queen raises a single issue on appeal:
Was not the evidence insufficient to convict Queen of voluntary
manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime where the
Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Queen did not act in justifiable self-defense?
See Queen’s Brief at 3.
In support of his sufficiency claim, Queen argues that the
Commonwealth failed to overcome his assertion of self-defense. Queen
contends that he acted in self-defense after Williams pulled out a knife and
attempted to stab him while he was on his knees. Because he raised the issue
of self-defense, the Commonwealth had the burden to disprove the defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the Commonwealth must
-2-
J-S19023-19
prove one of the following elements: (1) that the defendant did not reasonably
believe it was necessary to kill in order to protect himself against death or
serious bodily harm, or that the defendant used more force than was
necessary to save himself from death, great bodily harm, or the commission
of a felony; (2) that the defendant provoked the use of force; or (3) that the
defendant had a duty to retreat and that retreat was possible with complete
safety. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(b)(2); Commonwealth. v. Burns, 765 A.2d
1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2000). According to Queen, the Commonwealth failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any of these factors. As
such, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of voluntary
manslaughter and possessing an instrument of crime, and this Court should
vacate his sentence. Queen’s Brief at 11, 13. We disagree.
In reviewing a claim based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this
Court:
must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom when viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support
all elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the
evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it
links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations
omitted). “Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard
of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v.
Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013).
-3-
J-S19023-19
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, we conclude that there was sufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Queen did not act in self-
defense. Significantly, the severity of the victim’s wounds indicates that
Queen used more force than was reasonably necessary to protect himself from
serious bodily injury. Williams had multiple stab wounds, some in critical parts
of his body. Conversely, Queen only sustained a minor cut on his thumb, as
the trial court observed. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court
cogently analyzed Queen’s claim of self-defense under the law, and the
evidence which disproved it, as presented by the Commonwealth.
After considering the record, the parties’ briefs, the trial court’s opinion
and applicable law, we conclude that further discussion by this Court is not
necessary. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s opinion regarding Queen’s
claim of self-defense entered on July 24, 2018 as our own. In the event of
future proceedings, the litigants shall attach a copy the trial court’s opinion to
any filings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/29/19
-4-