Com. v. Santos, E. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J-S41023-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    ERIC NOEL SANTOS                           :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 261 MDA 2020
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 31, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
    CP-67-CR-0000751-2019
    BEFORE:      KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2020
    Eric Noel Santos appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a
    jury found him guilty of Retail Theft and Conspiracy.1 Santos challenges the
    sufficiency and weight of the evidence, as well as the admission of testimony.
    We affirm based on the trial court opinion.
    In December 2018, Officer Adam Bruckhart went to a Walmart in York
    County in response to a report of a retail theft. There, a loss prevention officer
    told him that Santos and Daniell Monique Scott had attempted to steal a
    hoverboard valued at $241.68. Police arrested and charged them. At their
    joint jury trial, both Santos and Scott testified that they had brought a vacuum
    cleaner and the hoverboard back to Walmart to return them. However, the
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3929(a)(1) and 903, respectively.
    J-S41023-20
    loss prevention officer testified that he had watched a surveillance video twice
    that showed Santos and Scott coming into the store with only the vacuum
    cleaner. He also said that at the time of the incident, he gave the police officer
    copies of timestamped, still photos from the video. He stated that following
    the incident, when he attempted to transfer the surveillance video to a disk
    for the police, he discovered that the video and other files on the system were
    corrupted. He explained that such corruption cannot result from human error.
    Young then testified about the contents of the video, over a defense objection
    based on the best evidence rule. Finally, a Walmart employee who stopped
    Santos and Scott when they attempted to leave said that she stopped them
    and asked them for a receipt, and they could not produce a receipt for the
    hoverboard.
    The jury found Santos and Scott guilty of the above offenses and the
    trial court sentenced Santos to six to 12 months’ incarceration. Santos filed a
    post sentence motion challenging the weight and sufficiency of evidence. See
    Post-Sentence Motion, filed 1/10/20. The trial court denied the motion and
    this timely appeal followed.
    Santos raises the following issues before this Court:
    I.     Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain the
    conviction?
    II.    Whether the verdict is against the weight of the
    evidence?
    III.   Whether the affiant and loss prevention officer’s
    testimony about the missing surveillance video
    violated the Best Evidence Rule or was otherwise
    -2-
    J-S41023-20
    hearsay and should not have been allowed into
    evidence[?]
    Santos’ Br. at 5.
    Santos’ first claim challenges the sufficiency of evidence. He claims that
    “[t]here exists no evidence that [Santos] carried away the hoverboard with
    the intent to deprive the owner of full value.” Id. at 16. Our standard of review
    is de novo; “our scope of review is limited to considering the evidence of
    record, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, viewed in the light
    most    favorable    to   the   Commonwealth       as   the   verdict    winner.”
    Commonwealth v. Rushing, 
    99 A.3d 416
    , 420–21 (Pa. 2014).
    Here, the trial court determined that the evidence was sufficient to
    sustain the convictions. It noted the evidence and testimony at trial that
    Santos and his co-defendant did not walk in with the hoverboard, picked up
    the hoverboard while in the store, and then attempted to leave the store
    without paying for the item.
    [T]he evidence and testimony proffered at trial showed that
    [Santos] and Daniell Scott walked towards the front of the
    store almost instantly after they placed the hoverboard into
    their cart. The time-stamped photographs presented at trial
    indicated that, there were no other items except the vacuum
    cleaner in [Santos’] cart around 5:31 p.m. [Santos] and
    Daniell Scott selected the hoverboard and placed it on the
    bottom of their cart around 5:33 p.m. Police were called at
    6:07 p.m. Both [Santos] and Daniell Scott confirmed that it
    was approximately 30 minutes that they stood at the front
    of the store after they were confronted by Sabrina Santiago.
    -3-
    J-S41023-20
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Op. (“1925(a) Op.”), 4/17/20, at 9 (citations to notes of
    testimony and exhibit omitted). Upon a review of the record, we agree that
    the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
    Next, Santos challenges the weight of the evidence. He maintains that
    the testimony of the Commonwealth witnesses were contradictory and that
    his testimony established that he had an intent to pay for the items in his cart.
    We review the trial court’s ruling on a weight claim for abuse of
    discretion:
    [I]n a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the function
    of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s
    exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record,
    rather than to consider de novo the underlying question of
    the weight of the evidence. [Commonwealth v.]
    VanDivner, 962 A.2d [1170,] 1178 [(Pa. 2009)]. In
    determining whether this standard has been met, “appellate
    review is limited to whether the trial judge’s discretion was
    properly exercised, and relief will only be granted where the
    facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of
    discretion.” Commonwealth v. Diggs, 
    597 Pa. 28
    , 
    949 A.2d 873
    , 879 (2008).
    Commonwealth v. Rivera, 
    983 A.2d 1211
    , 1225 (Pa. 2009). “A verdict is
    against the weight of the evidence ‘only when the jury’s verdict is so contrary
    to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.’” VanDivner, 962 A.2d at
    1177 (quoting Commonwealth v. Cousar, 
    928 A.2d 1025
    , 1036 (Pa. 2007)).
    Here, the trial court determined that the jury’s verdict was not contrary
    to the evidence, noting that “[t]he jury found [Santos’] testimony not credible
    . . . .” 1925(a) Op. at 13.
    -4-
    J-S41023-20
    [T]he circumstantial evidence in this case simply supports
    the conclusion that [Santos] had the intent to deprive the
    Walmart of its possession of the hoverboard. [Santos and
    Scott] told both Andrew Young and Sergeant Bruckhart that
    they had brought the vacuum cleaner and the hoverboard
    into the store for exchange. This was contradicted by the
    photographic evidence. The evidence presented at trial
    clearly weighed in favor of the Commonwealth.
    The jury found [Santos’] testimony not credible, and his
    argument did not prevail.
    
    Id.
    We discern no abuse discretion. As the fact finder, the jury determined
    that the Commonwealth’s witnesses were credible and that Santos’ version of
    what occurred was not credible. We cannot say that the trial court abused its
    discretion in concluding that the jury’s verdict was not so contrary to the
    evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.
    For his final claim, Santos alleges that the trial court erroneously allowed
    the testimony of Young and the officer who arrived on the scene that day. He
    maintains that because the original surveillance video was corrupted, the best
    evidence rule prevented the witnesses from testifying about the video.
    We review the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
    Commonwealth v. Green, 
    162 A.3d 509
    , 516 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc).
    The best evidence rule provides, “An original writing, recording, or photograph
    is required in order to prove its content unless these rules, other rules
    prescribed by the Supreme Court, or a statute provides otherwise.” Pa.R.E.
    1002. If the original has been lost or destroyed, other evidence is admissible
    to prove the content of the writing, recording, or photograph, so long as the
    -5-
    J-S41023-20
    loss or destruction of the original is not by the proponent having acted in bad
    faith. See Pa.R.E. 1004; Commonwealth v. Dent, 
    837 A.2d 571
    , 589
    (Pa.Super. 2003).
    Here, the trial court determined that the Commonwealth was not
    required to produce the original surveillance footage because it had been
    corrupted. The court concluded that “the Commonwealth did not act in bad
    faith in failing to preserve the video evidence” and it therefore allowed into
    evidence Young’s testimony. See 1925(a) Op. at 16.
    After a review of the parties’ briefs, the certified record, and the relevant
    law, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis. We thus affirm based on the
    well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Maria Musti Cook. We add only that
    although Santos makes reference to a hearsay argument in his Statement of
    Questions Involved, he does not develop the claim in the body of his brief,
    and has thus waived it. See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 
    129 A.3d 480
    ,
    502 (Pa. 2015).
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 11/12/2020
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 261 MDA 2020

Filed Date: 11/12/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024