Com. v. Belle, C.

J-S43010-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CRYSTAL MARIE BELLE :
:
Appellant : No. 158 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 6, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-65-CR-0004218-2016
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2021
Appellant, Crystal Marie Belle, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on January 6, 2020, in the Westmoreland County Court of Common
Pleas. After review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history in
this matter as follows:
The charges in this case arose out of an investigation of the
death of nineteen-year-old Khalil Parker (hereinafter “Parker”) on
June 11, 2016 in Jeanette, Westmoreland County. The evidence
presented at trial established that on the date of the incident, at
2:24 p.m., first responders were dispatched to 14 South 7th
Street in Jeannette for an unresponsive male possibly suffering
from cardiac arrest. (Trial Transcript (hereinafter “TT”) 10/2-
10/19 at 93). Joseph Sapp, who is employed as a nurse
practitioner and a volunteer for Jeannette EMS, testified that upon
arrival on scene, he observed Parker unresponsive, lying on the
kitchen floor with his pants down around his ankles and
[Appellant] performing CPR on him. (TT at 89-95). According to
Mr. Sapp, [Appellant] informed him that Parker was involved in an
altercation earlier that day and was dropped off by friends and
J-S43010-20
then collapsed on the floor. (TT at 98, 105). Mr. Sapp testified
that upon inspection, he observed numerous small pieces of skin
missing from Parker’s entire body without the presence of blood.
(TT at 96-102). Additionally, his testimony revealed that Parker’s
body was cold, and his pupils were fixed and dilated indicating
that his brain had been without oxygen for an extended period of
time. (TT at 101). Parker was transported to Westmoreland
Hospital where he was later pronounced dead. (TT at 99, 103).
Officer Frank Balistreri, of the City of Jeannette Police
Department, testified that upon arrival on scene, he observed
Parker lying on his back in the kitchen without any clothes on. (TT
at 113-116). Officer Balistreri indicated that Parker had a
laceration above his left eye and abrasions on his body that
appeared to be “wiped off”. (TT at 116, 121). According to Officer
Balistreri, [Appellant], who made the initial 9-1-1 call requesting
assistance, indicated that Parker left the residence at 5:00 a.m.
and came home at 1:00 p.m. before falling to the floor. (TT at
116-119). Officer Balistreri testified that [Appellant] informed him
that Parker had issues with other males from Wilkinsburg and had
been beaten up the week prior in which he received treatment for
a head injury; however, Officer Balistreri was not provided with
the names of any assailants. (TT at 118-119). After talking with
[Appellant], Officer Balistreri reviewed the department logs and
determined that no assaults had been reported during June of
2016, nor was there any evidence of a fight in the surrounding
area of [Appellant’s] residence. (TT at 120-121). Officer Balistreri
indicated that he secured the residence and attempted to call
[Appellant’s] cell phone several times after she failed to appear at
the hospital; however, the calls went unanswered, and a BOLO
[(“be on the lookout”)] was issued for [Appellant] at 8:49 p.m.
that evening. (TT at 125-126, 130-132).
Detective Ray Dupilka, of the Westmoreland County District
Attorney’s Office, testified that he also attempted to periodically
call [Appellant] without answer. (TT at 740). Detective Dupilka
indicated that he secured a search warrant for [Appellant’s]
residence on June 11, 2016, and requested a criminal complaint
be issued against her on July 1, 2016. (TT at 741-742). According
to Detective Dupilka, [Appellant] called him on July 14, 2016, and
turned herself in. (TT at 743-744).
Lance Clemons testified that on the date of the incident,
[Appellant] contacted him and told him that she and Parker got
-2-
J-S43010-20
into a fight and she didn’t “think [Parker would] make it.” (TT at
171-175). According to Mr. Clemons, [Appellant] indicated that
Parker was throwing her around, and she hit him with a broken
shovel, (TT at 175).
Officer Thomas Yaniszeski, of the City of Jeannette Police
Department, testified that on May 17, 2016, he was dispatched to
the South 7th Street apartments for reports of a black female and
black male fighting in the street. (TT at 645-651). [Appellant’s]
neighbors, Robert Veitch and Mark Andrew Taylor, testified that
they heard [Appellant] and Parker arguing a lot. (TT at 662, 677).
Vernessa Kershaw, who had known Parker through his
grandmother Barbara Morris, testified that she last saw Parker at
[a] funeral in May of 2016. (TT at 682-685). Ms. Kershaw
described Parker as “distant” and indicated that when she was
talking with Parker, [Appellant] came over to them, told
Ms. Kershaw to stay away from [Parker], and called her a “bitch”.
(TT at 685-689). Parker’s mother, Candice [(“Ms. Parker”)],
testified that during the funeral, Parker seemed “more
withdrawn”, and she observed blood on Parker’s shirt and
scratches and white marks on his skin. (TT at 710-722).
According to Ms. Parker, [Appellant] indicated that [Appellant and
Parker] had a disagreement, and “it will never happen again”. (TT
at 723).
Retired Westmoreland County Detective Hugh Shearer
testified that he examined the entirety of [Appellant’s] residence
and collected evidence of red staining on the walls, fixtures, floor,
furniture, clothing, bedding, and objects, including a broken
shovel handle, which tested presumptively positive for blood. (TT
at 184-418). Through his examination, Detective Shearer
detected wet towels in the basement and what he believed to be
diluted blood and wipe patterns on the walls in the kitchen, as well
as a palm print on the back of the kitchen wall that was attributed
to [Appellant]. (TT at 223-224, 390-391). Detective Shearer
testified that after reviewing the autopsy photographs of the
decedent, he made a scaled overlay of a picture of the broken grip
of the shovel handle and the ragged laceration on Parker’s left
orbital bone. (TT at 405-414).
Ashlee Mangan, who is employed as a forensic scientist with
the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Forensic Services,
testified that through her examination, she determined that there
-3-
J-S43010-20
was blood present on the items submitted by Detective Shearer
and she collected swabs and prepared them for DNA analysis. (TT
at 486-509). Sara Harner, who is employed as a forensic DNA
scientist for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, testified that the
known reference sample from Parker matched the DNA profile
obtained from the swabs of blood prepared by Ms. Mangan from
the end of a wood board, the damaged handle and grip of the
shovel shaft, a metal portion and jaws of a pair of pliers, a T-shirt
with blood in the kitchen garbage bag, and a table top in the
master bedroom. (TT at 593-606, 614). Ms. Harner testified that
the swabs from the grips of the pliers were consistent with a
mixture of two people, the major component matching the known
reference sample for [Appellant]. (TT at 608).
Forensic Pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht testified that he
conducted an autopsy of the decedent and observed over a
hundred acute, subacute, and chronic injuries to [Parker’s] body;
however, aside from a minimally enlarged heart, Parker was “a
perfectly healthy 19-year-old.” (TT at 524-532, 557-561).
Dr. Wecht testified that he also detected a subscapular hematoma
on the left side of the decedent’s scalp, and cerebral edema was
present. (TT at 557-558). Dr. Wecht confirmed that the broken
shaft of the shovel, that was located in the residence, could have
caused the injury to the left of the decedent’s eye. (TT at 556).
Based upon his autopsy examination and a review of the
Commonwealth’s exhibits of photographs of blood deposits in the
residence, Dr. Wecht opined that with a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, Parker’s death was attributed to hypovolemia,
which is the diminished body fluids as a result of exsanguination
due to multiple injuries. (TT at 560-561). To the contrary,
Defense expert witness, Forensic Pathologist Lindsey Thomas
opined that she did not believe that Parker’s death was caused by
his injuries; however, she was unable to determine the cause of
his death. (TT at 857-884).
Julie Thomas testified that in August of 2018 and May of
2019, she was an inmate at the Westmoreland County Prison with
[Appellant]. (TT at 776). According to Ms. Thomas, [Appellant]
informed her that she began fighting with her boyfriend, struck
him with a shovel, and tried to “clean it up” after learning that he
was cheating on her. (TT at 776-781).
[Appellant] also elected to testify in her own defense.
[Appellant] testified that in early 2015, she met Parker in
-4-
J-S43010-20
Wilkinsburg through mutual friends when she was thirty-five years
old and Parker was in high school. (TT at 921-925, 993-994).
[Appellant] testified that in March of 2016, when Parker was
nineteen years old, they began to engage in a sexual relationship
which was “not normal” to her, involving tying each other up with
shoelaces and spanking each other. (TT at 921-927, 994-995).
[Appellant] confirmed that a week prior to Parker’s death, they
went to West Penn Hospital to seek treatment for an open head
injury that Parker sustained after being beat[en] up in
Wilkinsburg, and at that time, he provided the name “Dom
Wilkins” because he did not want anyone to know he was there.
(TT at 931-937). [Appellant] testified that the wound was
profusely bleeding, and they used towels and T-shirts to soak up
the blood before going to the hospital. (TT at 933). [Appellant]
indicated that the night before Parker’s death, she became angry
after [Parker] inserted what appeared to be [the handle of a
shovel] in her rectum, and she threw the shovel [handle] at him.
(TT at 947-951). [Appellant] testified they then began arguing
and physically fighting. (TT at 951-960). Specifically, during the
encounter, [Appellant] indicated that Parker kept trying to grab
her so she cut him a couple of times with scissors and pliers, but
eventually they stopped and went to sleep. (TT at 953-960).
According to [Appellant], Parker was not present when she
woke up the following morning; however, he arrived back at the
apartment a couple of hours later with his shirt on his head to stop
it from bleeding again. (TT at 960-965). [Appellant] indicated that
they began arguing again, and eventually Parker stated that he
did not feel well, he started to convulse, and then he slid to the
floor. (TT at 965-968). [Appellant] testified that she tried to move
Parker to take him to the hospital, but she was unable to do so
and decided to call 9-1-1. (TT at 970-971). As Parker was being
transported to the hospital, [Appellant] indicated th[at] she
initially followed the ambulance with her vehicle; however, she
panicked and drove to Mr. Clemon’s house instead. (TT at 976-
977). [Appellant] denied both killing Parker and confessing the
murder to Ms. Thomas. (TT at 985).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As a result of the investigation, [Appellant] was arrested and
charged with Murder of the First Degree, in violation of 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a); Murder of the Third Degree, in violation of
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c); Unlawful Restraint/Serious Bodily Injury,
-5-
J-S43010-20
in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2902(a)(1); and Tampering
with/Fabricating Physical Evidence, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4910(1). On October 2-10, 2019, [Appellant] proceeded to a
jury trial before this [c]ourt. Following deliberations, the jury
found [Appellant] guilty of Murder of the Third Degree and
Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence. [Appellant] was
found not guilty of the remaining counts. Sentencing was deferred
pending a Pre-Sentence Investigation. On January 6, 2020,
[Appellant] was sentenced to a term of fifteen (15) to thirty (30)
years [of] incarceration with two (2) years concurrent probation.
Attorney Brian Aston represented [Appellant] at trial and during
sentencing.
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 4/14/20, at 1-7.
On January 28, 2020, Appellant filed a timely appeal, and on February 4,
2020, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed her
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on February 25, 2020, in which she raised the
following issue:
1. The jury erred in determining the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to find [Appellant] guilty of Murder in the Third
Degree and Tampering with Physical Evidence.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 2/25/20, at ¶1.1
Our standard of review is as follows:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder[‘s].
____________________________________________
1 In her brief, Appellant presented substantially the same issue: “Whether the
jury’s verdicts for Murder in the Third Degree and Tampering with Physical
Evidence were based on sufficient evidence?” Appellant’s Brief at 2.
-6-
J-S43010-20
In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established
by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be
resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be
drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered.
Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943-944 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Third degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing with malice but
without the specific intent to kill. Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215,
1219 (Pa. Super. 2011); 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c). Our Supreme Court has
explained that “to convict a defendant of the offense of third-degree murder,
the Commonwealth need only prove that [Appellant] killed another person
with malice aforethought.” Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 363-
364 (Pa. 2005). Malice is defined as:
A wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty,
recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social
duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be
injured.... Malice may be found where [Appellant] consciously
disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions
might cause serious bodily injury.
Dunphy, 20 A.3d at 1219. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
“Malice may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the
victim’s body.” Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546, 550 (Pa. Super.
2003).
-7-
J-S43010-20
Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence is defined as follows: “A
person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, believing that an
official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he:
(1) alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with
intent to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation ….”
18 Pa.C.S. § 4910(1).
At the outset, we note that the Commonwealth contends Appellant
waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence due to the lack of
specificity in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth’s Brief at 5
(citing Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005);
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998); and
Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009)). After review,
we agree.
It is well settled that “to preserve their claims for appellate review,
appellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a
Statement of [Errors] Complained of on Appeal pursuant to [Rule] 1925. [As
a general rule, a]ny issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived.” Castillo, 888 A.2d at 780 (quoting Lord, 719 A.2d at 309).
“If [an appellant] wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient,
then the [Rule] 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements
upon which the evidence was insufficient.” Manley, 985 A.2d at 262; see
also Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-1258 (Pa. Super.
-8-
J-S43010-20
2008) (finding waiver of sufficiency of evidence claim where the appellant
failed to specify in Rule 1925(b) Statement the elements of particular crime
not proven by the Commonwealth).
Herein, Appellant’s claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence fails
to designate which element or elements of the crimes allegedly were not
proven by the Commonwealth.2 Consequently, Appellant waived her
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Manley, 985 A.2d at 262;
Williams, 959 A.2d at 1258.
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude Appellant waived her sole
issue on appeal.3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
2 In her appellate brief, Appellant assails the Commonwealth’s collection of
evidence, and she asserts that the Commonwealth failed to prove: a link
between the evidence collected at the crime scene and the crimes charged;
Parker’s death was a homicide; Appellant was the perpetrator; Appellant acted
with malice; Parker’s injuries were not due to the violent sex-life between
Appellant and Parker; and bloody towels and shirts found in the home were
used to cover up a crime as opposed to simply being evidence of Appellant
cleaning up after her violent sex-life with Parker or cleaning up after Parker
engaged in a physical altercation with a third party. Appellant’s Brief at 13-
18. However, none of these specific challenges was presented to the trial
court, i.e., the trial court was left to guess at which elements of the crimes
were allegedly not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 Assuming, arguendo, that Appellant had not waived her issue on appeal, we
would affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion. Although the trial court was not apprised of the specific bases for
Appellant’s challenge, the trial court aptly addressed the evidence and
concluded that it was sufficient to prove the elements of third-degree murder
and tampering with physical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and sustain
the jury’s guilty verdict. Trial Court Opinion, 4/14/20, at 8-12.
-9-
J-S43010-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2021
- 10 -