Com. v. Stafford, K. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • J-A08022-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                       IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee
    v.
    KHALILAH STAFFORD
    Appellant                   No. 2860 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 19, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
    Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014292-2014
    BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
    MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                                FILED MAY 19, 2017
    Khalilah Stafford appeals from her judgment of sentence, entered in
    the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following her convictions
    for aggravated assault, a felony of the second-degree,1 possession of an
    instrument of crime (PIC)2, simple assault3 and recklessly endangering
    another person (REAP).4         Stafford challenges the sufficiency and weight of
    the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
    ____________________________________________
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702.
    2
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907.
    3
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701.
    4
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
    J-A08022-17
    The trial court set forth the relevant factual history as follows:
    The [c]omplainant, [Kendra Edmunds], testified that on
    November 8, 2014 at around 2:20 a.m., she was asleep at a
    friend’s house located on the 3100 block of North 28 th Street in
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.        [Edmunds] stated that she
    awakened by being “sliced four times.” [Edmunds] explained
    that at first she did not notice, but then became aware of her
    injuries and went to the hospital. [Edmunds] stated, “I got cut
    on my arm, my shoulder, my arm on the one side, and my
    buttocks.” She clarified that this was on her right side.
    On cross-examination, [Edmunds] testified that she did not see
    the person who sliced her, but knew . . . it was [Stafford]. She
    stated that there was a party at the house and that she went to
    bed when the party was over, around 1:30 a.m., but that there
    were still people in the house. [Edmunds] further stated that
    she did not see [Stafford] at the house before she went to bed.
    ...
    [Robert Harvin] affirmed that [Stafford] was his girlfriend on
    November 8, 2014. He testified that he spoke to detectives
    around 6 a.m., but that he was still intoxicated. When asked if
    he recognized the statement he made to detectives . . . [Robert
    Harvin] verified that it was his signature, but that he did not
    want to sign it. [Robert Harvin] affirmed the following statement.
    Q:    What can you tell me about [Stafford]?
    A:    She is my ex-girlfriend.
    However, [Robert Harvin] clarified that he never told detectives
    that [Stafford] was his ex-girlfriend. [Robert Harvin] explained
    that he could not remember what time it was when the
    statement was taken and that he was too intoxicated to
    remember giving and signing the statement.
    [Robert Harvin] testified that he did not see [Stafford] after the
    party ended, but said he saw her leave in a cab . . . around 1:30
    a.m. and then changed the time to [12:00 a.m.]. [Robert
    Harvin] affirmed that he did not see [Stafford] at the party
    between [12:00] a.m. and 1:30 a.m.
    ...
    -2-
    J-A08022-17
    [Eloris Harvin] testified that she lives at 3131 North 28 th Street
    with her sons Andre and Robert. [Eloris Harvin] stated that she
    knows [Stafford] through Robert Harvin. On November 8, 2014,
    [Eloris Harvin] saw [Stafford] around 2:30 a.m. in the morning,
    but could not recall the exact time. [She stated]:
    What happened was we had a birthday party.
    Anyway things happened, then after that, you know,
    we were getting ready to go to bed, [Andre Harvin]
    and I, and we heard a knock on the door. So we
    thought it was a straggler who left the party. In the
    meantime, just as [Andre Harvin] was getting ready
    to close the door [Stafford] barges right upstairs. I
    thought she was coming to use the bathroom and
    she runs into the front bedroom where . . . [Robert
    Harvin] and [Edmunds] were asleep.         And as I
    turned around and looked[,] [Stafford] was running
    out the door. I remember because I know what
    [Stafford] had on.
    [Eloris Harvin] testified that “it didn’t even take ten minutes.”
    [Eloris Harvin] stated that [Edmunds], came downstairs to go to
    the hospital because she was bleeding.
    On cross-examination, [Eloris Harvin] affirmed that she was
    scheduled to go to cataract surgery a few days after the
    incident. When prompted about her identification of [Stafford],
    [Eloris Harvin] repeatedly stated that she knew what [Stafford]
    looked like and that her eyesight was not that bad that she could
    not see.     [Eloris Harvin] affirmed that detectives read her
    statement because she was not able to read it on her own.
    [Eloris Harvin] testified that she was in the living room when she
    saw [Stafford] come in through the door, run up the stairs[] and
    later come down the stairs. [Eloris Harvin] stated that she did
    not see [Stafford] with anything [in] her hands but
    acknowledged that there was a knife in front of her door.
    [Eloris Harvin] testified repeatedly that [Stafford] never left the
    party. She stated that [Stafford] was getting things together for
    the party with her earlier during the day and that she never saw
    [Stafford] leave the party. [Eloris Harvin] further stated that
    [Stafford] was wearing a black and gold jumpsuit with shoes to
    match. [Eloris Harvin] did not know if [Stafford] got into a fight
    with anyone that day. She testified that [Edmunds] and Robert
    Harvin were sleeping upstairs at the time of the incident. [Eloris
    -3-
    J-A08022-17
    Harvin] stated that they went to sleep at about [11:00] p.m. and
    added, “[Edmunds] was already asleep[,] [a]nd [Robert Harvin]
    didn’t know she was in there. I have two bedrooms. He did not
    know she was in there until it happened.”
    [Eloris Harvin] testified that she did not see anything in
    [Stafford’s] hands when she came in and later ran down the
    steps, but affirmed that police recovered a knife from the top of
    the television. When prompted further about whether [Stafford]
    was carrying anything, [Eloris Harvin] stated, “[w]ell how did it
    get there?” and then stated that she did see [Stafford] carrying
    the knife. When approached with her previous statement . . . to
    detectives on November 8, 2014 at 4:40 a.m., [Eloris Harvin]
    affirmed that she remembered speaking with detectives at that
    time. [Eloris Harvin] verified the following portion of her
    statement and affirmed her signature on the statement:
    Q: Did you see [Stafford] with a knife or cutting
    instrument?
    A: No[.]
    [R]ecords from Temple University Hospital for [Edmunds],
    [were] marked and moved into evidence. A stipulation was
    entered as to the admissibility that [Edmunds] presented on
    November 8, 2014 at 3:28 a.m. for multiple stab wounds. She
    was treated with stitches and a tetanus shot. The wounds were
    a [two-inch] wound, laceration to her right arm[,] a [1.2-inch]
    laceration to her right shoulder[,] [and] a [1.2-inch] laceration
    to her right hip.
    Trial Court Opinion, 5/18/16, at 2-6 (citations omitted).
    On June 18, 2015, following a bench trial, the trial court found Stafford
    guilty of aggravated assault, PIC, simple assault and REAP. On August 28,
    2015, Stafford filed a timely post-sentence motion claiming that the
    evidence was insufficient and the verdict was against the weight of the
    evidence. Stafford filed a timely notice of appeal, and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b), she filed a court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of
    -4-
    J-A08022-17
    on appeal on December 23, 2015. Stafford raises the following issues for
    our review:
    1. Was not the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to sustain
    a conviction for aggravated assault, [PIC], simple assault[]
    and [REAP], where the Commonwealth failed to establish who
    caused the complaining witness to be cut, whether [Stafford]
    was present at the time of the incident[] and whether a knife
    was recovered from the scene?
    2. Was not the verdict so contrary to the weight of the evidence
    as to shock one’s sense of justice, therefore requiring a new
    trial, where the only witness to put appellant at the scene of
    the incident was visually impaired, made her identification by
    clothing alone[] and gave completely inconsistent testimony?
    Brief of Appellant, at 3.
    Stafford first claims that the unreliable testimony of Eloris and Robert
    Harvin is insufficient to sustain a conviction for the above charges.                In
    reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine
    whether,   viewing   the    evidence   in   the   light    most    favorable   to   the
    Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences
    therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of
    the   crimes   charged      was   established     beyond    a     reasonable   doubt.
    Commonwealth v. Randall, 
    758 A.2d 669
     (Pa. Super. 2000).
    A person commits aggravated assault, a felony of the second degree, if
    he attempts to cause or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a
    deadly weapon. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702. A person commits possession of an
    instrument of crime, a misdemeanor of the first degree, if he possesses any
    instrument of crime with the intent to employ it criminally. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
    -5-
    J-A08022-17
    907.   An instrument of crime is: (1) anything specially made or specially
    adapted for criminal use, or (2) anything used for criminal purposes and
    possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for
    lawful uses it may have.      Id.   A person is guilty of simple assault, a
    misdemeanor of the second degree, if he (1) attempts to cause or
    intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; (2)
    negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or (3)
    attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious
    bodily injury.    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701.         A person commits REAP, a
    misdemeanor of the second degree, if he recklessly engages in conduct
    which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious
    bodily injury. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
    Stafford’s argument rests on her assertion that Eloris Harvin’s
    “opportunity to observe the assailant was minimal, her vision was severely
    compromised, she was not paying full attention to the assailant and she had
    no other basis to make an identification.” Brief of Appellant, at 16.
    Generally, in reviewing the propriety of identification evidence, the
    central inquiry is whether, “under the totality of the circumstances, the
    identification was reliable.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 
    23 A.3d 544
    , 558
    (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Commonwealth v. Moye, 
    836 A.2d 973
    , 976 (Pa.
    Super. 2003); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 
    954 A.2d 1194
     (Pa.
    Super. 2008) (evidence of identification need not be positive and certain to
    sustain conviction). In determining the reliability of identification testimony,
    -6-
    J-A08022-17
    the finder of fact should evaluate the witness’ opportunity to view the
    perpetrator at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the
    accuracy   of   description     provided,    the   level   of    certainty    when    the
    identification takes place, and the time between the crime and confrontation.
    See Commonwealth v. Sanders, 
    42 A.3d 325
     (Pa. Super. 2012). “Given
    additional evidentiary circumstances, any indefiniteness and uncertainty in
    the identification testimony goes to its weight.” Commonwealth v. Orr, 
    38 A.3d 868
    , 874 (Pa. Super. 2011).
    Eloris Harvin had an opportunity to observe Stafford before, during
    and after Robert Harvin’s birthday party, and stated she knew Stafford
    “[t]hrough [Robert Harvin].”         N.T. Waiver Trial, 6/18/15, at 22.             Eloris
    Harvin was also able to identify Stafford by her unique “black and gold jump
    suit” and matching shoes, which she was wearing when, at approximately
    2:30 a.m., she entered the front bedroom in which Edmunds was sleeping.
    N.T. Waiver Trial, 6/18/15, at 27-28.           These observations served as an
    independent     basis    for   her   in-court   identification   of     Stafford.    See
    Commonwealth            v.   Johnson,    
    615 A.2d 1322
         (Pa.     Super.    1992)
    (independent basis for in-court identification existed where witness had
    previously seen defendant on several occasions and positively identified
    defendant at preliminary hearing).          Moreover, Eloris Harvin reiterated her
    certainty when she stated, “[m]y eyesight was not that bad – excuse me –
    my eyesight was not that bad that I couldn’t see.”                    N.T. Waiver Trial,
    5/18/17, at 25.
    -7-
    J-A08022-17
    Edmunds suffered four knife wounds, one each on her two arms,
    shoulder and buttocks. Edmunds’ medical records, indicating she received
    stitches and a tetanus shot, corroborate the extent of her wounds.      See
    Commonwealth v. Gray, 
    867 A.2d 560
    , 569 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stipulated
    admission of victim’s hospital records corroborated evidence of aggravated
    assault, simple assault and PIC). Moreover, Eloris Harvin’s testimony placed
    Stafford at the scene moments before Edmunds was stabbed. Eloris Harvin
    witnessed Stafford enter her home, run upstairs – where the front bedroom
    Edmunds was sleeping in is located – and then run back down the stairs and
    out of her home.    Only Eloris Harvin, Andre Harvin, Robert Harvin and
    Edmunds were present in the home when Stafford entered.             Shortly
    thereafter, Eloris Harvin witnessed Edmunds emerge from the front bedroom
    with stab wounds.    Police later recovered a knife from the top of Eloris
    Harvin’s television near the front door, which Eloris Harvin discovered “in
    front of [her home’s] door”. N.T. Waiver Trial, 6/18/15, at 26. Moreover, it
    is uncontested that Stafford attended the party and was either currently
    dating or had previously dated Robert Harvin, who was in bed with Edmunds
    when she was stabbed.
    The Commonwealth presented abundant of Stafford’s culpability for
    Edmunds’ stabbing. See Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 
    747 A.2d 910
     (Pa.
    Super 2000) (Commonwealth may sustain burden of proving every crime
    beyond reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence).
    -8-
    J-A08022-17
    Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to establish all of the above offenses.
    Randall, 
    supra.
    Stafford’s final claim is that the verdict was against the weight of the
    evidence. We disagree.     When a defendant challenges the weight of the
    evidence, relief in the form of a new trial may only be granted where the
    verdict shocks one’s sense of justice. Commonwealth v. Champney, 
    832 A.2d 403
    , 408 (Pa. 2003). This Court reviews the trial court’s exercise of
    discretion in ruling on the weight claim, not the underlying question of
    whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 
    Id.
    Based on Eloris Harvin’s testimony detailing Stafford’s presence at her
    home when Edmunds was stabbed, Stafford’s relationship with Robert Harvin
    and Edmunds’ medical records, it was reasonable for the trial court to
    conclude that Stafford’s conviction does not shock one’s sense of justice.
    Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 
    Id.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 5/19/2017
    -9-