Com. v. Young, W. ( 2021 )

J-S05041-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILBERT YOUNG :
:
Appellant : No. 1222 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 10, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0008182-2018
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JUNE 4, 2021
Wilbert Young appeals from the judgment of sentence following his
convictions for Attempted Rape, Indecent Assault, and Indecent Exposure.1
He challenges the weight of the evidence. We affirm.
The trial court stated the facts giving rise to Young’s convictions as
follows:
In October 2018, the victim, . . . and her husband were
living in the same apartment building as [Young]. One day,
the victim went to [Young’s] apartment to borrow a food
item. [Young] greeted the victim at the door of his
apartment, exposed his penis, and stated, “Oh, we’re going
to have sex tonight.” He then pulled the victim into the
bedroom of his apartment. With his penis still exposed,
[Young] pushed the victim onto the bed and “started to kiss”
her “all over” her face. He pinned the victim down onto the
bed by placing his knees on the victim’s lower body and
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 3121(a), 3126, and 3127, respectively.
J-S05041-21
rubbed his hands all over from her shoulders down to her
waist. The victim resisted by punching [Young] in the face
multiple times. After the victim punched him five to ten
times, [Young] moved off of her. The victim immediately left
the apartment, and [Young] said, “Bitch, you crazy, get the
fuck out of my apartment.”
Three weeks later, because she was “so mad” and “so
angry,” the victim told her husband about what [Young] did
to her. On October 25, 2018, the victim and her husband
went to a police station and reported the incident.
[The victim’s husband] testified that the victim told him
about this incident. Upon learning what had occurred, [the
victim’s husband] went to [Young’s] apartment. After Mr.
Jones explained what his wife told him, [Young] did not deny
the incident occurred but instead responded, “I was just
playing with her.”
Philadelphia Police Officer Denise Turner testified that, on
October 25, 2018, when the victim and [her husband]
arrived at the Sixth District’s police station, [] she prepared
an incident report. This police report, which was entered into
evidence as C-5, corroborated the testimony of the victim.
Trial Court Op. (“TCO”), filed 11/10/20, at 1-2 (citations omitted).
The jury found Young guilty of the above offenses and the trial court
sentenced him to an aggregate term of seven to 14 years’ incarceration.
Young filed a post-sentence motion that challenged the weight of the
evidence. The motion was denied by operation of law and this timely appeal
followed.
Young raises one issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying [Young] a
new trial where the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence as the complainant’s testimony was so tenuous,
vague and uncertain, that the guilty verdict was manifestly
unreasonable and shocks the conscience?
-2-
J-S05041-21
Young’s Br. at 3 (answer of trial court omitted).
A weight claim is for the trial court in the first instance. See
Commonwealth v. Stiles, 143 A.3d 968, 980 (Pa.Super. 2016). The trial
court may sustain a weight challenge and grant a new trial only “when the
jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice
and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another
opportunity to prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa.
2013). “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is
free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the
credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403,
408 (Pa. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666, 672 (Pa.
1999)). We review the trial court’s rejection of a challenge to the weight of
the evidence for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158
A.3d 698, 712 (Pa.Super. 2017).
Young claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
because of the victim’s “wildly differing accounts” of the crime. Young’s Br. at
9. Young notes multiple inconsistencies between the victim’s testimony at
trial, her police statement, and her testimony at the preliminary hearing. Such
alleged inconsistencies include the time when the assault occurred, the
sequence of events leading up to the assault, where Young touched the victim
during the assault, and whether Young struck the victim. Id. at 4, 5, 6. He
also argues that the victim did not promptly report the assault and that the
-3-
J-S05041-21
victim’s husband testified that he did not believe her when she initially told
him what happened.
While the parties and the court agree that there were inconsistencies in
the victim’s testimony, the trial court and the Commonwealth assert that they
were not significant. The trial court found that the inconsistences “were
insignificant in light of the totality of [the victim’s] testimony as well as its
corroboration by other witnesses.” TCO at 6. The court also noted that the
uncorroborated testimony of a victim is sufficient to support a sexual assault
conviction. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803, 807
(Pa.Super. 2017)). It also pointed out that the jury as fact finder was free “to
believe the testimony of the victim as well as to disregard any inconsistencies
between the victim’s statements to police and her testimony at trial.” Id.We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Young’s weight claim. The jury sitting as fact finder was free to believe all,
part, or none of the victim’s testimony, and reconcile any inconsistencies. The
victim testified that she suffered from epilepsy, which sometimes caused her
to forget. N.T., Trial, 7/19/19, at 16. Furthermore, as the trial court noted,
there was corroboration by way of other witnesses, including the victim’s
husband. Although the victim’s husband testified that he did not believe her
when she first told him about the assault, he also testified that he believed
her once he confronted Young. The evidence was not so tenuous, vague, and
uncertain that the trial court’s rejection of Young’s weight challenge
constituted an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm.
-4-
J-S05041-21
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/4/21
-5-