Com. v. Roberts, S.

J-S06041-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN MICHAEL ROBERTS :
:
Appellant : No. 1122 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-21-CR-0002611-2020
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 30, 2023
Sean Michael Roberts appeals from the June 17, 2022 judgment of
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole imposed after
a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder.1 After careful review, we affirm
the judgement of sentence.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
In the predawn hours of October 15, 2020, the Carlisle
Borough Police Department responded to a 9-1-1 call
reporting a homicide at 169 and ½ East High Street,
Carlisle, Cumberland County. The caller, later
identified as Appellant, reported that he had murdered
Jodi Sivak (hereinafter “Victim”), by stabbing her in
the neck. The police quickly responded to the call,
taking Appellant into custody, and securing the scene
of the crime. Immediately inside the front door of the
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).
J-S06041-23
property the police discovered Victim, who was
pronounced dead at the scene due to multiple stab
wounds to the head and neck. Clearly visible was a
trail of blood leading from Victim’s body to the first-
floor kitchen where the murder weapon, a folding
knife, was recovered from the sink. Also visible was
a blood trail leading to the second-floor bathroom,
where Appellant’s bloody clothes were located next to
the shower. Appellant also had a bandaged wound on
his hand, which appeared to have been a result of
either Victim’s attempt at self-defense, or Appellant
cutting himself while struggling with Victim for control
of the knife.
After being detained at the scene, Appellant was
transported to the Carlisle Police Department, where
he gave a voluntary interview. In that interview,
Appellant described that he had flown out from
Massachusetts to spend a week with Victim, a
previous girlfriend of his. He stated that they had
spent a pleasant time together, and that he was
originally going to fly home on October 15th. Appellant
went on to describe that, on the night of the crime, he
and Victim had been drinking whiskey earlier in the
night, and that a neighbor had provided some “Amish
weed” for the pair to smoke. However, Appellant flatly
stated during the interview that at the time of the
stabbing he was not impaired or intoxicated to the
point that he was out of control of his actions, and he
had a clear recollection of having an argument with
Victim before stabbing her. Importantly, during the
interview Appellant stated with respect to his alcohol
consumption being a factor in the murder, “Yeah I
don’t, I don’t think that had anything to do with it, but
I mean, whatever, lawyers, whatever is gonna try to
say otherwise, but I don’t think it had anything to do
with it.” In fact, the recorded interview demonstrated
that Appellant was both candid regarding his actions
and fully cooperative with the police in their initial
investigation of the murder.
Notably, Appellant recalled that he grabbed the knife
and repeatedly stabbed Victim, and that he attempted
to cover her mouth during the attack to prevent her
-2-
J-S06041-23
from screaming. After killing Victim, Appellant walked
to the first-floor kitchen to wash his hands and deposit
the knife in the sink. He stated that he then went to
the second-floor bathroom to take a shower, dress his
wound, and change his clothes, before taking a nap
and then making the 9-1-1 phone call which
summoned the police to his location. During that 9-
1-1 call, Appellant informed the operator that he
intended to peacefully surrender, and that he was not
armed.
Trial court opinion, 10/4/22 at 1-4 (footnotes omitted).
Appellant was subsequently charged with first-degree murder and
proceeded to a jury trial on April 11, 2022. Following a three-day jury trial,
the trial court found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder. As noted,
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
on June 17, 2022. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion which was denied
by the trial court following a hearing on July 14, 2022. This timely appeal
followed on August 9, 2022.2
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
I. Was the conviction against the weight of the
evidence such that it shocked one’s sense of
justice based on the evidence of [Appellant’s]
intoxication presented during trial and the
Commonwealth’s failure to prove that he acted
with the specific intent to kill?
II. Based on the evidence of [Appellant’s]
intoxication presented during trial, did the trial
court err in failing to give the jury instruction for
voluntary intoxication or drugged condition as
____________________________________________
2 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-3-
J-S06041-23
defense to first-degree murder, as requested by
counsel?
Appellant’s brief at 5 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Appellant first argues that the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence because “it shocked one’s sense of justice based on the evidence of
[his] intoxication” and the Commonwealth’s purported “failure to prove [his]
specific intent to kill[.]” Appellant’s brief at 10. We disagree.
This Court has recognized that “a true weight of the evidence challenge
concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain the verdict but questions
which evidence is to be believed.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632,
643 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 183 A.3d 970 (Pa.
2018). “An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is
addressed to the discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Galvin,
985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051(2010).
[W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim
below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the
underlying question of whether the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review
is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused
its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to
hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate
court will give the gravest consideration to the
findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when
-4-
J-S06041-23
reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least
assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial
is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or
was not against the weight of the evidence and that a
new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.
This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by
the trial court in granting or denying a motion for a
new trial based on a challenge to the weight of the
evidence is unfettered. In describing the limits of a
trial court’s discretion, we have explained[,] [t]he
term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate
conclusion within the framework of the law, and is not
exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of
the judge. Discretion must be exercised on the
foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice,
personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions.
Discretion is abused where the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but
where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or
where the law is not applied or where the record
shows that the action is a result of partiality,
prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citations and
emphasis omitted).
Upon review, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion
in concluding that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the
evidence. See trial court opinion, 10/4/22 at 5-7. “[T]he trier of fact while
passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence
produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa.Super. 2006)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 926 A.2d 972 (Pa. 2007).
-5-
J-S06041-23
Here, the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses that Appellant
stabbed the victim nine times in her neck and head area, resulting in her
death. See notes of testimony, 4/12/22 at 183-196, 208-210 (Dr. Wayne
Ross); 236-238, 244-246 (Robert Johnson). The jury also had the benefit of
a video recording of Appellant’s interview with the police in the immediate
aftermath of the murder, wherein he provided a detailed timeline the murder
and expressly stated that he was not intoxicated to the point where he did not
know what he was doing. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 10 – Recorded
Interview; notes of testimony, 4/11/22 at 127-128. The jury clearly found
the testimony and evidence presented at trial credible and elected not to
believe Appellant’s subsequent version of the events. We are precluded from
reweighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the
factfinder. Clay, 64 A.3d at 1055. Accordingly, Appellant’s weight claim must
fail.
Appellant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing
to charge the jury with an “instruction for voluntary intoxication or drugged
condition as a defense to first-degree murder[.]”3 Appellant’s brief at 14. We
disagree.
The standard of review for a trial court’s decision to refuse a diminished
capacity jury instruction based on voluntary intoxication is an abuse of
____________________________________________
3 This defense is also known as “diminished capacity.”
-6-
J-S06041-23
discretion. Commonwealth v. Clemons, 200 A.3d 441, 465 (Pa. 2019),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 176 (2019). This Court has stated:
Our standard of review when considering the denial of
jury instructions is one of deference — an appellate
court will reverse a court’s decision only when it
abused its discretion or committed an error of law.
Further, the trial court is not required to give every
charge that is requested by the parties and its refusal
to give a requested charge does not require reversal
unless the Appellant was prejudiced by that refusal.
Commonwealth v. Green, 273 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa.Super. 2022) (citations,
internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted), appeal denied, ___ A.3d
___, 2022 WL 17662326 (Pa. 2022).
Our Supreme Court has examined when a jury must be provided a
voluntary intoxication/diminished capacity instruction in Commonwealth v.
Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 907 (2014).
Padilla involved a defendant who argued that his convictions for first-degree
murder should be vacated because the trial court erred when it instructed the
jury that there was no evidence of diminished capacity due to his ingestion of
alcohol and/or drugs. Id. at 1263. The Padilla Court held:
A defense of diminished capacity negates the element
of specific intent, and thus mitigates first-degree
murder to third-degree murder. The mere fact of
voluntary intoxication does not give rise to a
diminished capacity defense. Rather, to prove
diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication, a
defendant must show that he was overwhelmed to the
point of losing his faculties and sensibilities. Evidence
that the defendant lacked the ability to control his or
her actions or acted impulsively is irrelevant to
-7-
J-S06041-23
specific intent to kill, and thus is not admissible to
support a diminished capacity defense.
This Court has previously made clear that a jury
instruction regarding diminished capacity due to
voluntary intoxication is justified only when the
record contains evidence that the accused was
intoxicated to the point of losing his or her
faculties or sensibilities. Evidence that the accused
ingested alcohol or other intoxicating drug — without
more — does not warrant a voluntary intoxication
instruction.
Id. (citations omitted; emphasis added).
Upon review, we find no basis to conclude that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying Appellant’s requested jury instruction on voluntary
intoxication. The record reveals no evidentiary basis that Appellant was
sufficiently intoxicated during his murder of the victim to warrant such an
instruction. On the contrary, Appellant’s own admissions during his video
interview with police immediately following the murder belie his claim that he
was intoxicated to the point of having lost his faculties or sensibilities.
As stated by the trial court,
Appellant provided a detailed walkthrough of his
actions from the time he first stabbed Victim until he
summoned the police and surrendered himself into
their custody. Further, Appellant himself discounted
his intoxication during the interview, stating that while
his attorneys might attempt to argue that he was too
intoxicated to know what he was doing, that was not
the case. Appellant’s actions following the murder
through his confession were calm and calculated, and
reflected a clear recollection of events as well as a
clear thinking pattern. For example, Appellant stayed
on the line with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, so she could
ensure the police knew that he was not armed and
-8-
J-S06041-23
thus they would not find him to be a threat. At no
time in Appellant’s actions or presentation in the video
did he act as though he was even slightly intoxicated.
Trial court opinion, 10/4/22 at 8-9.
This Court has long recognized that there is no right to have any
particular form of instruction given; it is enough that the charge “clearly and
accurately characterize relevant law.” Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216
A.3d 307, 321 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 224 A.3d
364 (Pa. 2020).
Here, the record reveals that the trial court charged the jury with an
instruction similar to the one given in Padilla, which permitted the jury to
consider Appellant’s alcohol and drug intake on the evening in question
together with all the other evidence in the case to “determine if the
Commonwealth has met its burden of proving specific intent beyond a
reasonable doubt.” See notes of testimony, 4/13/22 at 113-114. We find
these instructions clearly, adequately, and accurately presented the relevant
law to the jury for its consideration. Appellant’s claim to the contrary,
therefore, must fail.
For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s June 17, 2022
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S06041-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/30/2023
- 10 -