Com. v. Snyder, J., Jr. ( 2017 )

J-S64015-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN HENRY SNYDER, JR. :
:
Appellant : No. 344 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0002569-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 13, 2017
A jury convicted Appellant, John Henry Snyder, Jr., of aggravated
assault and endangering the welfare of his girlfriend’s two-and-a-half-year-
old child. Snyder contends the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the
evidence at trial. After careful review, we affirm.
Snyder’s sister, Brenda Morales, testified she lived with Snyder, his
girlfriend, and his girlfriend’s child at the time of the instant offense. On that
day, she left to go to visit her in-laws, leaving Snyder home alone with the
child. Later that day, Snyder called her, claiming the child had been injured
after falling down a flight of stairs in the home. Snyder sent Morales pictures
of the toddler, which revealed bruising around and an eye and a hand-
shaped bruise around the neck. These pictures were not presented as
evidence at trial.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64015-17
Morales testified that after the fall, Snyder had claimed he had picked
the child up with two hands, one on the child’s diaper and the other around
the child’s neck. When she returned to the home, she took pictures of the
child’s injuries. Morales’s pictures of the injuries were presented as evidence
at trial.
Morales also testified to a conversation she had with Snyder some time
after the incident. In this conversation, Snyder admitted he injured the child
when he grabbed the child by the neck, hit the child in the face, and
smashed the toddler’s face into a wall. He admitted he had done this
because he had been frustrated with the child’s crying.
Several months later, Morales met a police investigator pursuant to an
unrelated investigation. It was only at this point that she reported the abuse
suffered by the child.
Snyder’s girlfriend, the mother of the child, testified that she often left
the child in Snyder’s care when she went to work. She also testified that
Snyder had called her on that day to inform her of the child’s injuries. Over
the phone, Snyder only related the child’s fall. However, when his girlfriend
returned home later that night, he informed her he had dropped the child
when picking him up after the fall. He related he had caught the toddler
around the neck after dropping him.
Dr. Kathryne Crowell, a pediatrician, testified that in her expert
opinion, the injuries suffered by the child were not consistent with a fall
-2-
J-S64015-17
down stairs. Rather, she opined that they were consistent with strangulation
and blunt force trauma. She further opined that the neck bruise would have
required excessive force, and could not be caused by simply picking the child
up by the neck. Finally, she stated that the injuries were consistent with
Snyder’s confession to Morales.
Snyder testified that he was asleep on a couch when he heard the
child fall down the stairs. He rushed over to pick him up. He assumed the
bruises on the child’s neck came from when he picked the child up after the
fall. He denied making any confession to Morales.
On appeal, Snyder contends the jury’s verdict was inconsistent with
the evidence at trial. He points to his girlfriend’s testimony that there was a
hostile atmosphere between herself, Snyder, and Morales regarding
economic issues. He highlights irreconcilable inconsistencies between
Morales’s testimony and the testimony of his girlfriend. Further, he notes his
girlfriend testified that Morales’s children were abusive to the child, and
Morales actively encouraged this abuse. Finally, Snyder notes Morales is
facing charges related to her failure to seek appropriate care for the child
after the injuries.
We do not review challenges to the weight of the evidence de novo on
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 (Pa. 2009).
Rather, we only review the trial court’s exercise of its discretionary judgment
regarding the weight of the evidence presented at trial. See id. “[W]e may
-3-
J-S64015-17
only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d
403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). 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).
Here the trial court acknowledged the appropriate legal standards in
addressing Snyder’s challenge. The court identified the inconsistencies in
Snyder’s story, his confession to Morales, and Dr. Crowell’s expert testimony
as credible evidence that Snyder had abused the child. It therefore
concluded that the jury’s verdict did not shock its conscience, and denied
Snyder a new trial.
After reviewing the transcripts, we cannot conclude that the trial court
misstated the evidence of record. Nor can we conclude that its reasoning
constitutes an abuse of discretion. The figure of Justice is firmly rooted to
her pedestal here. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-4-
J-S64015-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/13/2017
-5-