Com. v. Copley, M. ( 2023 )

J-S14023-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL D. COPLEY :
:
Appellant : No. 395 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 28, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-07-CR-0000150-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: July 25, 2023
Appellant’s wife was reported missing in December of 2015 and her body
was discovered in a garage in June of 2016. Following a two-year
investigation, Appellant was arrested and ultimately convicted of, inter alia,
homicide in the third degree for her murder. Appellant raises three claims on
appeal from his judgment of sentence of 26.5 to 57 years of incarceration.
We affirm.
The trial court opinion does not contain a factual recitation and
Appellant’s statement of the case does not offer any factual history. But see
Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)(4) (stating that the statement of the case shall contain “[a]
closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form, of all the facts
which are necessary to be known in order to determine the points in
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14023-23
controversy” with appropriate citations to the record). As Appellant’s
challenges do not depend on the validity of any inferences drawn from the
Commonwealth’s evidence, we offer a short summary of the essential facts.
On June 8, 2016, the decomposing body of Catherine Copley was found
in the detached garage of a home in Altoona. Mrs. Copley’s mother had
reported her missing on December 13, 2015, while Appellant had already
reported Mrs. Copley missing shortly after midnight on December 11, 2015.
The evidence established that on the evening of December 9, 2015, the
Copleys had friends over to drink. Mrs. Copley and some other guests decided
to get some marijuana for the group to smoke from Dustin Salyard, who lived
approximately a half mile from the Copley residence. They returned sometime
after 1 a.m., and the party continued. Mrs. Copley went missing the next day.
On December 17, 2015, Appellant called the police to report that he saw
one of Mrs. Copley’s shoes in Salyard’s backyard. Salyard consented to a
search of his home; no other evidence was found. Following the discovery of
Mrs. Copley’s body, the matching shoe was discovered adjacent to her corpse.
DNA testing established that Appellant’s DNA was present on the shoe found
in Salyard’s yard, while Salyard’s and Mrs. Copley’s were not. Furthermore,
Appellant’s DNA was under Mrs. Copley’s fingernails.
The Commonwealth’s theory was that Appellant killed his wife and
planted the shoe in Salyard’s yard in an attempt to pin the crime on him. The
Commonwealth presented evidence of marital strife between the Copleys. The
Commonwealth obtained cell phone records demonstrating that Appellant had
-2-
J-S14023-23
accused his wife of having sex with Dustin Salyard in exchange for marijuana,
an accusation confirmed by cell phone extractions of Mrs. Copley’s phone.
Other witnesses testified that Appellant had made angry comments about his
wife’s infidelities.
Additionally, Appellant gave several statements to police officers that
were contradicted by the foregoing testimony. Particularly, Appellant claimed
that their marriage was untroubled and that he was unaware of Mrs. Copley’s
affair with Salyard until after her disappearance. He also appeared nonchalant
about his wife’s whereabouts in the months preceding her body’s discovery,
and did not participate in her funeral arrangements. Appellant was also
observed tearing down a “missing person” poster asking for information.
Locational data extracted from Appellant’s phone indicated that it had
connected to a tower near the garage on the night of her disappearance. That
garage and its home were vacant, as the homeowner had died several years
before. The home was listed for sale by the county to pay taxes. Stephen
Little, a friend of the Copleys, testified that Appellant and Mrs. Copley had
discussed purchasing the property.
Following a five-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of, inter alia,
homicide in the third degree and burglary, and sentenced as previously stated.
He filed a timely notice of appeal and complied with the trial court’s order to
file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court authored its responsive
opinion and the matter is ready for review of the three questions Appellant
presents for our review:
-3-
J-S14023-23
I. Did the Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to support
… Appellant’s conviction for burglary?
II. Did the trial court err in permitting the Commonwealth to
present various photographs of the decedent which only served to
inflame the passions of the jury?
III. Did the trial court err in permitting the Commonwealth to elicit
testimony from the funeral director regarding the circumstances
of decedent’s funeral arrangements?
Appellant’s Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Appellant’s first issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his burglary conviction. Appellant maintains that the Commonwealth
failed to establish that the garage was not “abandoned,” which is a statutory
defense to burglary. We conclude that Appellant waived this issue by failing
to raise that defense at trial.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with violating the following
subsection of the burglary statute:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the offense of burglary
if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person:
....
(2) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately
secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for
overnight accommodations in which at the time of the
offense no person is present;
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(2).
Abandonment is one of three statutory defenses codified within
subsection (b):
(b) Defense.--It is a defense to prosecution for burglary if any
of the following exists at the time of the commission of the
offense:
-4-
J-S14023-23
(1) The building or structure was abandoned.
(2) The premises are open to the public.
(3) The actor is licensed or privileged to enter.
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(b).
Abandonment being a defense is significant in that it speaks to whether
the Commonwealth is required to disprove that element beyond a reasonable
doubt as part of its case-in-chief. Difficult interpretive questions can arise
when the statutory text defining the crime contains an “exception.” An
example of this is Section 6106(a) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act
of 1995. In Commonwealth v. Lopez, 565 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1989), our
Supreme Court examined the following statutory language: “No person shall
carry a firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except in
his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as
provided in this subchapter….” Id. at 439 (quoting statute).1 The “except in
his place of abode or fixed place of business” language was deemed an
element of the offense. “This clause is clearly an integral part of the forbidden
conduct found in the definition of the offense. The Commonwealth cannot
successfully prove a violation of section 6106 without showing that the gun,
found on the person, was carried outside the place of abode.” Id. In contrast,
subsection (b) of that statute, which remains defined as “Exceptions,” are
____________________________________________
1 The statutory language today states: “Except as provided in paragraph (2),
any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a
firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed
place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter
commits a felony of the third degree.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106.
-5-
J-S14023-23
“affirmative defenses, which must be placed in issue by the defendant, and
which need not be negated by the prosecutor in its case-in-chief.” Id. at 440.
“Under the rules of statutory construction, subsection (b) clearly evidences a
distinction between the definition of the crime and its exceptions.” Id.
Turning to the crime of burglary, subsection (b), entitled “Defense,”
clearly evidences a statutory distinction between the definition of the crime
and its defenses. There is thus no question that the Commonwealth is not
required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the building is not
abandoned (or that the premises were not open to the public or that the actor
was not privileged to enter). Those are defenses, which must be put into issue
by Appellant. He failed to do so.
Appellant recognizes that abandonment is a defense, arguing that “once
an affirmative defense has been raised, in any proper manner, the
Commonwealth must present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to refute
same.” Appellant’s Brief at 13-14 (citing Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53
A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012)). Appellant submits that whether the garage was
“abandoned” was put into issue from several sources, beginning with
Commonwealth witness Jason Keith, who discovered Mrs. Copley’s body. Mr.
Keith testified that the homeowner had died within the last “year or two[,]
within that time frame” and, in response to the Commonwealth’s question,
“So the property was abandoned?[,]” he answered, “Yeah.” N.T., 8/3/21, at
74. Appellant also points out that the Commonwealth in its opening and
-6-
J-S14023-23
closing arguments referred to the garage as abandoned.2 Additionally, the
coroner testified that her husband’s cousin happened to own the home, and
that he had passed away on February 9, 2014, with the home remaining
vacant. Id. at 135.
It is true that defendants may raise affirmative defenses when evidence
supporting the defense is introduced by any source. Commonwealth v.
Alvarez-Herrera, 35 A.3d 1216, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“An affirmative
defense may be introduced from any source, Commonwealth or defense.”).
However, we disagree that the defense of abandonment can be raised
implicitly. Defenses must either be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt by
the Commonwealth, or the defendant bears the burden of establishing it by a
preponderance of the evidence.3 In both cases, the fundamental point
remains that the issue must be raised. This ensures that the parties are aware
of the need to establish (or rebut) the defense. In turn, this enables the fact-
____________________________________________
2 Appellant also cites the fact that the Commonwealth withdrew the charge of
criminal trespass during trial, informing the trial court that it could not
overcome the abandonment issue. Because abandonment is a statutory
defense to criminal trespass as well as burglary, Appellant submits that the
Commonwealth conceded that the defense applied. It is not clear why the
Commonwealth withdrew that charge. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth’s
legal conclusion does not bind this Court, as even an actual concession of error
“is not a substitute for independent judicial review.” Commonwealth v.
Brown, 196 A.3d 130, 146 (Pa. 2018). See also Commonwealth v. Perrin,
291 A.3d 337 (Pa. 2023) (concluding that the trial court did not have to accept
a joint stipulation by the parties to a witness’s credibility).
3 There does not appear to be any decision from our appellate courts
addressing who bears the burden once a Section 3502(b) defense is raised.
-7-
J-S14023-23
finder to determine the issue. As the trial court noted, the jury was never
instructed to decide whether the garage was abandoned. Trial Court Opinion
(“TCO”), 6/1/22, at 5 (“It also appears that there was no request for any jury
instruction on the factual question of abandonment.”). That is directly
attributable to Appellant’s failure to adequately raise the defense. Id. (“This
[c]ourt questions whether … [Appellant] has waived this issue. … [T]his
[c]ourt’s review of the record … leads this [c]ourt to the conclusion that
[Appellant] did not raise the defense of abandonment at trial.”). We therefore
conclude that Appellant did not adequately place the defense at issue during
trial, rendering this claim waived. See Commonwealth v. Wanner, 158
A.3d 714, 717 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[The a]ppellant avers that there is a
statutory affirmative defense to Defiant Trespass that is applicable in the
instant case. [The a]ppellant waived this claim by failing to raise it before the
trial court and preserve it in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.”) (footnote and
citation omitted).4
____________________________________________
4 Had Appellant not waived his abandonment claim, we would be unpersuaded,
based on the record before us, by the Commonwealth’s argument that it
successfully established the inapplicability of the defense beyond a reasonable
doubt. The Commonwealth argues that the evidence established that the
building was not abandoned, citing Commonwealth v. Henderson, 419 A.2d
1366 (Pa. Super. 1980), where this Court held that the General Assembly
intended “abandon” to track the dictionary definition meaning of “wholly
forsaken or deserted.” Id. Henderson involved the defendant’s entering a
building that was up for sale. In that case, we concluded in short order that
“under the evidence there was no abandonment of the building or structure.”
Id. Here, the Commonwealth cites Henderson as proof that the garage here
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-S14023-23
Turning to Appellant’s second issue, we conclude that this claim has also
been waived. This issue challenges the admission of photographs of Mrs.
Copley’s body. The standards governing the admission of post-mortem
photographs is well-settled:
Photographs of a murder victim are not per se inadmissible…. The
admission of such photographs is a matter within the discretion of
____________________________________________
was not abandoned because the home, like the building in Henderson, was
up for sale. However, the similarities end there. In Henderson,
[t]he subject building was a seminary owned by the
Christian Educational Department of the AME Zion Church.
It was no longer in use but was not abandoned and was in
fact up for sale and was visited by the caretaker virtually
every day and by the Church’s lawyer once a week. It had
been out of use for only two to three months. The attorney
in charge of arranging a sale and the caretaker both testified
that the defendants had never been given permission to
enter the building or to remove any property from the
premises. Both these men also testified that when they had
last visited the building shortly before the incident, there
were no broken or boarded up windows, and the premises
were secure.
Id. at 1367 (citations omitted).
We would not read Henderson to hold that any building which is up for
sale is per se not abandoned. The facts in Henderson established that a
caretaker visited the site “virtually every day” and that the property had been
unused for two to three months. Henderson does not speak to the facts in
the case sub judice, where the structure was apparently unused for a far
lengthier time period and may or may not have been regularly maintained.
This point, however, illustrates the importance of squarely raising a defense.
Had Appellant directly cited the statutory defense at trial, the parties may well
have anticipated presenting more facts and testimony on the issue of
abandonment.
-9-
J-S14023-23
the trial judge. The test for determining the admissibility of such
evidence requires that the court employ a two-step analysis.
First[,] a court must determine whether the photograph is
inflammatory. If not, it may be admitted if it has relevance and
can assist the jury’s understanding of the facts. If the photograph
is inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or not the
photographs are of such essential evidentiary value that their
need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and
passions of the jurors.
Commonwealth v. Mollett, 5 A.3d 291, 301 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 531 (Pa. 2003)).
On June 23, 2021, Appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude forty-
three photographs taken during the autopsy and thirty-two photographs taken
at the garage, all of which showed Mrs. Copley’s body. The trial court ordered
a hearing, which took place on July 8, 2021. There, the trial court stated that,
during an off-the-record discussion with counsel, the Commonwealth had
selected 85 photographs out of approximately 300 total that it intended to
present at trial, including “approximately twenty … that don’t depict the
decedent at all.” N.T. Motion to Suppress, 7/8/21, at 21. The trial court
proposed that the Commonwealth offer “argument as to why they believe the
photographs are relevant and admissible. We would then provide [Appellant]
until close of business Monday to file of record specific objections to the 85
photographs.” Id. at 2. The parties agreed with this plan, and they proceeded
to discuss, in detail, what each photograph showed and its assertions of their
evidentiary value. See id. at 4-22.
Appellant filed his objections on July 12, 2021, discussing each
photograph. Appellant conceded that several of the photographs were
- 10 -
J-S14023-23
admissible, and further agreed to withdraw objections to others if the
Commonwealth edited the photographs to crop certain features and/or modify
color photographs to black and white.
The trial court issued a ruling on July 26, 2021, granting the motion to
exclude eight photographs and conditionally allowing all others, assuming the
Commonwealth could establish their relevance at trial. Appellant now argues
that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of “[six] photographs of
the decedent’s arms and hands taken during the autopsy.” Appellant’s Brief
at 17 (citing slides sixteen through twenty-one). These six photographs were
introduced during testimony about swabbing Mrs. Copley’s fingernails for DNA.
Appellant also challenges the admission of “multiple photographs of the
decedent taken shortly after her body was found.” Id. at 17-18 (citing slides
32, 35, 36, 37, and 39). These were introduced through the testimony of
Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Charles Stitt. Appellant argues:
[T]he photographs at issue in the present case were such that
they should be considered inflammatory in that their effect would
be to cause anger or violent feelings. Therefore, it would be
submitted that the trial court should have conducted an analysis
to determine if such inflammatory content was outweighed by
their essential evidentiary value.
As it relates to the photographs presented to the jury during the
testimony of Trooper Stitt, … Appellant concedes that there
existed evidentiary value to the photographs to provide the jury
with insight into the condition of the body at the time it was
discovered. However, said evidentiary value was outwieghed [sic]
by the inflammatory nature of the photographs and the
cumulative nature of presenting multiple photographs. Moreover,
it would be submitted that if the photographs were black and
white[,] it would have diminished the inflammatory nature of [the]
same.
- 11 -
J-S14023-23
As it relates to the photographs that were presented through the
testimony of Dr. Land, … Appellant would submit that [the] same
had little to no probative value. Therefore, the inflammatory
nature of the photographs far exceeded any probative value.
Id. at 18-19.
This claim was not adequately preserved in Appellant’s concise
statement of matters complained of on appeal, wherein Appellant merely
stated that “[t]he [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant]’s Motion … in
which he sought to preclude certain photographs from being presented by the
Commonwealth in that their probative value was far outweighed by the
likelihood of unfairly prejudicing the jury against [Appellant].” Concise
Statement, 4/28/22, at unnumbered 1, ¶ 3. The trial court’s opinion
responded to this claim as follows:
This [c]ourt conducted a hearing on … [Appellant]’s Motion in
Limine on July 8, 2021. It was at the July 8, 2021 hearing where
the [c]ourt considered the parties’ position on the photographs in
question. During this hearing, the [c]ourt went through each and
every potential photograph that was to be admitted at the time of
trial. This [c]ourt heard the Commonwealth’s position on the
photographs and also heard … [Appellant]’s response. There was
a certain level of agreement that was reached between the parties
on certain photographs. At the conclusion of the hearing, there
were a number of photographs that remained in dispute. This
[c]ourt subsequently issued an Order on July 26, 2021[,] on …
[Appellant]’s Motion in Limine pertaining to the photographs. In
our Order of July 26, 2021, this [c]ourt granted … [Appellant]’s
Motion in Limine as it pertained to eight photographs. We
deferred ruling on the remaining photographs until the time of trial
to determine if the Commonwealth could establish relevance. We
also directed the Commonwealth to take reasonable measures to
crop any photographs….
This [c]ourt stands by our decision made by Order dated July 26,
2021. This [c]ourt does not believe that the photographs …
actually admitted into evidence at the trial constituted
- 12 -
J-S14023-23
inflammatory photographs. In addition, this [c]ourt believes that
each of the photographs admitted into evidence had evidentiary
value to prove various things that the Commonwealth was
attempting to prove with each photograph. The [c]ourt believes
that the probative value of each photograph outweighed any
prejudicial effect that the photograph may have had on …
[Appellant]. This [c]ourt also notes that during our final charge
to the jury, we provided a cautionary instruction to the jury
concerning the photographs. This [c]ourt will not address any
specific photographs and their evidentiary value because we are
uncertain as to which photographs … [Appellant] is specifically
taking issue with[,] as his Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal references only “certain photographs.”
TCO at 8-10.
We agree that Appellant’s failure to specify which photographs the trial
court erred in admitting waived his present claim. “We specifically conclude
that when an appellant fails to identify in a vague Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement
the specific issue he/she wants to raise on appeal, the issue is waived, even
if the trial court guesses correctly and addresses the issue in its
Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) opinion.” Commonwealth v. Lemon, 804 A.2d 34, 38 (Pa.
Super. 2002). While the concise statement adequately apprised the trial court
that he took issue with the introduction of photographs as a generic matter,
Appellant failed to specify which photographs were, in his view, improperly
admitted. Appellant’s language may have been sufficient if his motion in
limine addressed only a few photographs. But his motion and the hearing
concerned dozens of photographs and, as reflected in the trial court’s opinion,
the parties agreed to the admission of some of these photographs, and the
court further directed the Commonwealth to crop some others. Nothing in
- 13 -
J-S14023-23
Appellant’s concise statement indicates that his complaint was limited to the
specific photographs he now addresses on appeal.
While the failure to specifically describe which photographs were at issue
justifies a finding of waiver, we separately conclude that Appellant has waived
his present claim for failing to adequately develop his argument. Appellant’s
concise statement alleged that the photographs’ “probative value was far
outweighed by the likelihood of unfairly prejudicing the jury against
[Appellant].” Concise Statement, 4/28/22, at unnumbered 1, ¶ 3.
The admission of post-mortem photos, as previously discussed, entails
a two-part inquiry. The first is whether the photographs are inflammatory. If
so, the “essential evidentiary value” standard applies. Commonwealth v.
Schroth, 388 A.2d 1034, 1036–37 (Pa. 1978) (“Normally the general rule is
that testimony is admissible if it is relevant and competent. However, where
the photograph possesses gruesome or inflammatory qualities likely to inflame
the passions of the viewer, our cases require the application of the ‘essential
evidentiary value’ balancing test.”) (citations omitted). Appellant’s brief takes
it for granted that the photographs were inflammatory, but the trial court
opinion explicitly disagreed with this assertion. TCO at 9 (“This [c]ourt does
not believe that the photographs … constituted inflammatory photographs.”).
Appellant offers little argument concerning the threshold question of whether
these photographs were inflammatory.
Relatedly, Appellant appeared to concede that some other photographs
were properly admitted despite being inflammatory. As such, it is not clear
- 14 -
J-S14023-23
whether he is arguing that the photographs were improperly admitted under
the two-part test or because of their cumulative nature. For instance,
Appellant’s objections filed after the hearing raised “[n]o objection … for
[s]lides 25 and 26[,]” but he objected to “[s]lides 27, 28, 29 and 30 … as
being unduly inflammatory and … cumulative of [s]lide 26.” Objections,
7/12/21, at unnumbered 2 ¶¶ 11-12. At the hearing, the Commonwealth
stated, “Slide 26 depicts the body as well as fluid around the body which the
Commonwealth previously indicated would be necessary for Dr. Land to opine
as to the extent of the decay that had occurred….” N.T. Motion to Suppress,
7/8/2021, at 8. If slides 27 through 30 are cumulative of 26, then 26 must
logically be unduly inflammatory in terms of what it depicts, too. Appellant’s
brief alludes to this concession. See Appellant’s Brief at 19 (arguing that the
“evidentiary value was outwieghed [sic] by the inflammatory nature of the
photographs and the cumulative nature of presenting multiple photographs”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s specific complaint is unclear. We will not go through
each photograph and explain why each was or was not inflammatory and, if
so, whether the essential evidentiary value was met in comparison to other
photographs that were admitted without objection and/or whether those
photographs were cumulative. “When a court has to guess what issues an
appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.”
Commonwealth v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 2000) (brackets and
quotation marks omitted).
- 15 -
J-S14023-23
Appellant’s final issue argues that the trial court erred in allowing the
testimony of Anthony Scaglione, who arranged Mrs. Copley’s funeral.
Appellant contends that this evidence was irrelevant and that its admission
prejudiced Appellant by inflaming the jury with irrelevant details. The trial
court explained why it deemed the evidence relevant:
This [c]ourt allowed the testimony of Anthony Scaglione on day
two of the five[-]day trial. While the [c]ourt allowed testimony
from Mr. Scaglione, we substantially limited the Commonwealth’s
originally intended testimony. The substance of Mr. Scaglione’s
testimony was simple, straightforward, and brief. Essentially, the
purpose of the Commonwealth’s presentation of Mr. Scaglione was
to establish that [Appellant] did not attend, nor participate in, nor
pay, towards the cost of his wife’s funeral. This [c]ourt notes that
this testimony was coupled with other testimony at trial to
establish that [Appellant] appeared to have a lack of remorse for
his [w]ife’s death. Several items of evidence and other
corroborating testimony [were] presented to further this
assertion. This [c]ourt finds that the testimony of Mr. Scaglione
was relevant in light of the Commonwealth’s theory of the
evidence. We note that this was a circumstantial case and the
specific details of the cause of death of the victim’s death were in
dispute. The [c]ourt allowed [Appellant]’s behavior after his
[w]ife’s death to be admissible in light of the specific
circumstances of this case.
TCO at 11-12. We fully agree with this analysis and find no abuse of
discretion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 16 -
J-S14023-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/25/2023
- 17 -