Com. v. Regusters, C.

J-S40024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTINA REGUSTERS, :
:
Appellant : No. 869 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 5, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-51-CR-0005630-2013
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 31, 2017
Appellant, Christina Regusters, appeals from the October 5, 2015
Judgment of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas following a jury trial. After careful review, we affirm.
We summarize the relevant factual and procedural history, as gleaned
from the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, as follows. On the morning
of January 14, 2013, the victim’s mother dropped N.R., the five-year-old
victim, off at Bryant Elementary School.1 Approximately ten minutes later,
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
In her brief, Appellant refers to the minor victim by her full name. Not
only do we disapprove of this practice, but it is also contrary to 42 Pa.C.S. §
5988, which makes it a criminal offense for an officer or employee of the
court to reveal the name of a minor victim of sexual abuse in documents
available to the public.
J-S40024-17
Appellant signed N.R. out of school, claiming to be her mother. Like N.R.’s
mother, Appellant wore full Muslim garb covering everything but her eyes.
She also appeared to be pregnant. After the school day was over,
employees of the daycare N.R. attended came to pick her up as they do
every day. When they arrived at school, they discovered that someone
other than her mother had signed her out for the day.
N.R. remained missing until approximately 4:00 A.M. the next morning
when a man heard her calling for help from inside a playground. Wearing
nothing but an oversized t-shirt, N.R. told the man that she had escaped
from her kidnappers. The man immediately called the police, who
transported her to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
A physical examination revealed evidence of extensive sexual abuse,
specifically vaginal and anal penetration by a foreign object. The anal injury
was so “severe and divertive that a colostomy was required to allow the
injury to heal properly.” Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/24/16 at 4. While
doctors found liquid stool in her anal and genital areas, they did not recover
any sperm. Investigators also swabbed the t-shirt she was wearing for DNA
evidence, and found Appellant’s DNA, N.R.’s DNA, and the DNA of the man
who found N.R. at the park.
On the same day she was found, N.R. recounted the details of her
abduction briefly to a member of the Special Victims Unit of the Philadelphia
Police Department, and later, in more detail, to a forensic investigator
-2-
J-S40024-17
assigned to the case. N.R. also described her experience to the forensic
investigator on a second occasion ten days later. She recalled that
Appellant, who first introduced herself to N.R. as Rashida, picked her up
from school, walked her to a house where she lifted her over a stone wall,
placed her in a bag that she removed from under her Muslim garb, carried
her into the house, and took her into a bedroom. Subsequently Appellant
ordered N.R. to remove her clothes and glasses, put on a blindfold, and get
under the bed.
Later, Appellant joined N.R. under the bed and introduced herself
again, this time as a woman named China. Significantly, China was
Appellant’s childhood nickname. While under the bed, Appellant warned
N.R. about a deaf man, briefly showing her his picture.2 She warned that
N.R. must be quiet, or else the man would harm her. N.R. stated that
Appellant penetrated her vagina and anus with something that felt like a
stick or a toothpick because it was sharp. Afterwards, Appellant gave N.R. a
bath, and brought her to the playground where she was eventually found at
4:00 A.M.
While Appellant kept N.R. blindfolded throughout most of the
encounter, she had removed the blindfold briefly while they were underneath
____________________________________________
2
While Appellant showed N.R. a picture of the deaf man, there is no
evidence to suggest that he actually existed or took part in the kidnapping or
sexual assault of N.R.
-3-
J-S40024-17
the bed to show N.R. the picture of the deaf man, when she gave N.R. a
bath, and when she walked N.R. to the playground where she was found.
N.R. described China as having light skin and light eyes.
N.R. also remembered hearing a talking bird that repeated the phrase
“You’re fired.” Detectives used the information about the talking bird to
solicit tips from the public, leading them to Appellant. Additionally, when
detectives drove N.R. around the neighborhood where she was found, she
pointed to a home with a green door near the garage of a home as the
location to which she was taken. Both Appellant and the talking bird resided
in that home.
At the time of the kidnapping, Appellant was an employee of the same
daycare that N.R. attended, and she had previously interacted with her. On
the day of the kidnapping, however, Appellant was serving a three-day
suspension from the daycare for an unrelated incident and was not working.
Appellant claimed she slept in at home that day because she was feeling ill.
She lived with her Aunt, Valerie Williams, and her young cousins.
Police searched Appellant’s home and seized all computers and cell
phones. A digital search of Appellant’s computer found that a user had
conducted Internet searches for Muslim clothing, child pornography featuring
young girls, whether taking a bath could remove DNA evidence, what type of
evidence police collect in a rape kit, and for information regarding N.R.’s
disappearance and the investigation that followed. It was not immediately
-4-
J-S40024-17
clear who had conducted the searches, as the computer was not password
protected and multiple people lived in the home. None of the victim’s DNA
was found in the house; Appellant’s aunt testified that Appellant had
recently disposed of the rug that had previously been underneath the bed.
Appellant matched the description N.R. provided and lived in the home N.R.
identified, and police arrested her.
Appellant’s case proceeded to a jury trial, where, inter alia, N.R.,
N.R.’s mother, the detectives who interviewed N.R., the forensic investigator
who interviewed N.R., and Appellant’s aunt, Valerie Williams, testified. 3 On
February 12, 2015, the jury convicted Appellant of Aggravated Assault,
Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Child (Serious Bodily Injury),
Kidnapping, Unlawful Restraint of a Minor–Risk of Bodily Injury, and
Concealment of the Whereabouts of a Child. She was sentenced to 40 years’
to life imprisonment followed by 20 years’ probation.
Appellant timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court both complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence from
which a trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable
doubt that Appellant Regusters committed the crimes for
which she was found guilty.
____________________________________________
3
The trial court questioned N.R. in the presence of defense counsel and the
prosecution and found her competent to testify. N.T., 8/27/14, at 126.
-5-
J-S40024-17
2. Whether the Court abused its discretion in failing to order a
new trial where, in light of the inconclusiveness of inculpatory
evidence proving that the Appellant engaged in criminal
activity, the guilty verdict was against the weight of the
evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, averring that
the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that she was the person who committed the crimes of
which the jury convicted her.
Evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law; thus, our standard of
review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v.
Diamond, 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013). In determining whether the
evidence was sufficient to support a verdict, we view the evidence and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to
the verdict winner, the Commonwealth herein. Commonwealth v. Watley,
81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc).
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, a court does not need
to be convinced that the evidence supports the conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Martin, A.3d 706, 729 (Pa. 2014).
Rather, “a court must determine simply whether the evidence believed by
the fact-finder was sufficient to support the verdict.” Id. Moreover, the
-6-
J-S40024-17
Commonwealth can sustain its burden “by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence.” Commonwealth v. Doughty, 126 A.3d 951, 958 (Pa. 2015).
Here, Appellant challenges the evidence supporting her identification
as the perpetrator of the crimes. Regarding the issue of identity, our
Supreme Court has stated that in order to sustain a conviction, the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the
identity of the accused as the person who committed the crime.
Commonwealth v. Hickman, 309 A.2d 564, 566 (Pa. 1973). Such proof
need not be positive, certain, or even direct, as a defendant may be
convicted based wholly upon circumstantial evidence. Id.After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the trial court Opinion, we conclude that Appellant’s
claim lacks merit. While no one could positively identify Appellant as the
person who committed the crimes charged, there was overwhelming
circumstantial evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict finding her guilty.
The t-shirt N.R. wore when she was found contained DNA from the
Appellant. Additionally, N.R.’s mother did not recognize the t-shirt and had
never seen her wearing it. N.T., 8/27/14, at 38.
When detectives drove N.R. around the neighborhood where she was
found, she pointed to the green door leading into the garage area of
Appellant’s house, and identified it as the house where she was taken.
Critically, the victim told police that she had heard a talking bird in the
-7-
J-S40024-17
house that repeated the phrase “You’re fired.” When detectives searched
Appellant’s residence, they came across a talking bird that repeated that
same phrase.
As an employee of the daycare that N.R. attended, Appellant knew
N.R. and was aware that her mother wore Muslim garb that covered
everything but her eyes. Video surveillance near Appellant’s house showed
N.R. wearing a jacket that belonged to Appellant’s aunt walking with the
woman in Muslim garb.
When investigators asked N.R. for information about her captor, not
only did her description of China as having light skin and light eyes match
Appellant’s description, but also the name China was Appellant’s childhood
nickname.
Further, Appellant’s Internet search history revealed a trove of
incriminating activity. A forensic analysis of Appellant’s computer showed
searches for child pornography, involving the type of sexual acts performed
on the victim, in addition to where to buy Muslim garb, whether taking a hot
bath or shower could remove any DNA evidence, what type of evidence
authorities collect in a rape kit, and for information on the police
investigation into the victim’s case.
Here, in support of her sufficiency challenge, Appellant claims that she
could not have been the perpetrator because she was not pregnant. This
claim falls flat. N.R. had recounted to her mother that the woman who
-8-
J-S40024-17
abducted her had an enlarged stomach not because she was pregnant, but
because of a bag stuffed in her clothing. N.R. had stated that, prior to
taking her into the home, Appellant had taken the bag out of her clothing,
put N.R. in the bag, and carried her into the house. Moreover, Appellant’s
aunt testified that she saw Appellant carrying something into the house at
approximately 9:00 A.M. on the morning the abduction took place, which
corroborated N.R.’s allegations. At the time, she noted to herself that it was
odd that Appellant had been out so early in the morning, considering she
claimed to be ill at the time. The testimony of Appellant’s aunt also
contradicted Appellant’s claim that she slept in that morning.
Although Appellant concedes that circumstantial evidence can support
a verdict, she nonetheless argues, with a self-serving characterization of the
evidence, that the evidence presented at trial does not establish with
certainty that she was the person who abducted and sexually assaulted N.R.
Her argument ignores our standard of review. This court must view all of
the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict
winner, and we may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment
for that of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1, 39-40.
(Pa. Super. 2014). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the inferences the
jury drew were reasonable regarding Appellant as the perpetrator in light of
the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
-9-
J-S40024-17
Viewing these facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, we conclude that
the circumstantial evidence presented at trial connecting Appellant to the
crimes charged was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
Weight of the Evidence
We next address Appellant’s assertion that the jury’s verdict was
against the weight of the evidence because the “paucity of inculpatory
evidence in the instant case constituted a shocking miscarriage of justice.”
Appellant’s Brief at 47.
A challenge to the weight of the evidence concedes that there was
sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744
A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). For that reason, the trial court need not view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and may instead
use its discretion in concluding whether the verdict was against the weight of
the evidence. Id.Since the trial court judge was present for the trial and heard the
evidence presented, this Court “will give the gravest consideration” to the
determinations made by the trial judge as to whether the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in
the interest of justice. Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa.
Super. 2013). Consequently, appellate review of a weight claim solely
- 10 -
J-S40024-17
assesses whether the trial court judge committed an abuse of discretion in
determining whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Id.Challenges to a trial court’s determination that the jury’s verdict is not
against the weight of the evidence is one of the least assailable reasons for
granting or denying a new trial. Id. Furthermore, “in order for a defendant
to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must
be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience
of the court.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appellant asks this court to reweigh the evidence against her,
including the credibility of the victim’s testimony, which it cannot do. As the
trial court noted, “the significant evidence gathered from the subsequent
interviews with the family, forensic data from the electronic devices, and
surveillance footage created adequate circumstantial evidence to support the
verdict.” Trial Court Opinion at 11. Moreover, the trial court also stated that
any potential discrepancies in the victim’s testimony “did not result in a
verdict that shocks the conscience.” Trial Court Opinion at 11.
We agree with the trial court that the jury’s verdict was not against the
weight of the evidence.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
- 11 -
J-S40024-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/31/2017
- 12 -