Com. v. Harriott, L. ( 2016 )

J. S72027/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
LESA M. HARRIOTT, :
:
APPELLANT :
: No. 484 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001009-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 14, 2016
Appellant, Lesa M. Harriot, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas following her
conviction by a jury of Simple Assault—Bodily Injury. 18 Pa.C.S. §
2701(a)(1). We affirm.
The facts as gleaned from the record are as follows. On June 1, 2015,
Graham Bramwell (“Victim”), and Appellant, his girlfriend, were at the
apartment they shared. N.T. Trial, 1/6/16, at 38. That day, Victim told
Appellant that he wanted to end their relationship and move back to Miami,
Florida. Id. at 39. Appellant reacted to this news by threatening to kill
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S72027/16
Victim. Id. The next day, following an argument with Appellant, Victim
spoke to his mother on the phone and asked her to book him a bus ticket to
Miami. Id. at 42. Appellant heard this, confronted Victim about leaving,
and then went into the kitchen. Id. As Victim lay on the bed watching
television, Appellant approached him with a pot of boiling water, and asked
Victim if he thought there was enough water in the pot to make spaghetti.
Id. at 47. As Victim raised his head to look into the pot, Appellant threw the
water on him, burning his arms, abdomen, and chest. Id. at 49.
Victim called 9-1-1; paramedics and police arrived shortly thereafter.
Id. at 53. When police spoke with Appellant, she claimed that Victim poured
the water on himself. Id. at 144. At trial, however, Appellant claimed that
victim kicked her as she brought water to the edge of the bed, at which time
she spilled the water on him. Id. at 199. The physical evidence, including
the location of the burns on Victim’s body and pictures showing the splatter
pattern of the water at the head of the bed and not the foot of the bed,
contradicted Appellant’s version of events. Id. at 49, 146.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant on July 8, 2015, with one count
each of Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault—Bodily Injury, and
Harassment.1 On January 6, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of Simple
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1), and 18 Pa.C.S. §
2709(a)(1), respectively.
-2-
J. S72027/16
Assault—Bodily Injury.2 On February 18, 2016, the court sentenced
Appellant to 6 to 24 months’ incarceration.
Appellant did not file a Post-Sentence Motion. On March 21, 2016,
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: “Did the lower court
commit an error of law and abuse of discretion by accepting the verdict
which was against the weight of the evidence and insufficient to support the
convictions, resulting in a miscarriage of justice?” Appellant’s Brief at 1, 5-
7.
As a prefatory matter, we note that in framing her issue as a challenge
to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant conflates two
distinct claims with different standards of review. In Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000), our Supreme Court highlighted
the distinction between challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and
challenges to the weight of the evidence, noting that the remedy for
insufficient evidence is an acquittal while a verdict against the weight of the
evidence is a mistrial, the remedy for which is the award of a new trial. In
addition, a contention that a given verdict was against the weight of the
evidence effectively concedes the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Id. at
2
The jury found Appellant not guilty of Aggravated Assault. The trial court
convicted Appellant of Harassment, a summary offense.
-3-
J. S72027/16
751-52. Therefore, although Appellant essentially fails to distinguish these
two claims for purposes of argument, the trial court considered each in turn,
and we will do the same, beginning with the weight of the evidence.
Appellant first claims that that the jury’s verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. However, we find this claim waived. Pa.R.Crim.P.
607 requires that a defendant raise a claim that his conviction was against
the weight of the evidence either orally or in writing at any time before
sentencing, or in a Post-Sentence Motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). Our
review of the record indicates that Appellant failed to raise this claim prior to
sentencing and did not file a Post-Sentence Motion. Accordingly, Appellant
has waived this claim. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d
165, 173 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting failure to file a Post-Sentence Motion
challenging weight of the evidence precludes appellate review of such claim).
Next, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented by
the Commonwealth in support of her conviction of Simple Assault.
This Court’s standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence is as follows:
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency
claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution
the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from
the evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to
support the verdict when it establishes each material
element of the crime charged and the commission thereof
by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless,
the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s
-4-
J. S72027/16
guilt is to be resolved by the fact[-]finder unless the
evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of
law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined
circumstances.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the fact that
the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a
crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction
where the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence.
Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that
of the fact[-]finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced,
accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s
crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s
convictions will be upheld.
Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497, 500-01 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citations and quotations omitted).
A defendant is guilty of Simple Assault if she “attempts to cause or
intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another[.]” 18
Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). “Bodily injury” is an “[i]mpairment of physical
condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.
The trial court found that the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient
to sustain Appellant’s conviction of Simple Assault—Bodily Injury. It
explained its decision as follows:
Bodily injury occurred in this case when a pot of boiling hot
water Appellant was holding near the victim, while the
victim was in bed, spilled onto the victim’s body and
caused second-degree burns. Testimony at trial
established Appellant knew the water in the pot was
boiling, she carried the pot over to the bed in which the
victim was laying, and she tilted the pot towards the
victim. Appellant gave testimony stating the victim kicked
-5-
J. S72027/16
her, which caused the boiling hot water to spill onto the
victim’s body. The victim gave testimony stating Appellant
poured the boiling hot water onto his body. A picture of
the bed in which the victim was lying when the boiling hot
water was spilled onto him was submitted into evidence,
and it depicted the pillows and sheets at the upper portion
of the bed being soaked by water. Considering this
evidence, the jury could reasonably infer Appellant was
aware her conduct would injure the victim, or that she
disregarded an unjustifiable risk that the victim would be
injured by her conduct. Therefore, the Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could
reasonably infer that Appellant intended to injure or
knowingly or recklessly did injure the victim.
Trial Ct. Op., 5/26/16, at 3-4.
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth
presented ample evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction. Our review of
the record, including the Notes of Testimony from Appellant’s trial, confirms
that the jury had sufficient direct, circumstantial, and physical evidence upon
which to conclude that Appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
caused Victim bodily injury. Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, thus, fails.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/14/2016
-6-