Com. v. Solomon, W.

J-A06013-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II :
:
Appellant : No. 676 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000432-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II :
:
Appellant : No. 677 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000441-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II :
:
Appellant : No. 678 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000440-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-A06013-23
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON, II :
:
Appellant : No. 679 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000096-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON :
:
Appellant : No. 680 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000006-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
WILLIAM M. SOLOMON :
:
Appellant : No. 681 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000005-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
-2-
J-A06013-23
WILLIAM MANSOUR SOLOMON II :
:
Appellant : No. 682 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-26-MD-0000472-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: JUNE 21, 2023
Appellant, William Mansour Solomon II, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on December 29, 2021. We affirm.
The trial court ably explained the facts and procedural posture of this
appeal:
On July 13, 2020, Appellant’s wife, Heather Solomon, filed for
a temporary protection of abuse (PFA) order against
[Appellant]. [The trial court] granted the temporary order
and both parties appeared at the final PFA hearing held July
27, 2020. . . . [That day, the trial court] granted a final PFA
for the duration of two years – until July 27, 2022.
Appellant subsequently was charged with [seven] violations
of the July 27, 2020 final order, specifically that: (1) he made
an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon on or about
September 28, 2020; (2) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening
email on or about November 28, 2020; (3) he sent Ms.
Solomon a threatening email on or about December 22,
2020; (4) he sent Ms. Solomon a threatening email on or
about December 29, 2020; (5) he broke and tampered with
the front window of Ms. Solomon’s residence and tampered
with and opened her postal mail on or about January 28,
2021; (6) he sent Ms. Solomon threatening messages via
Facebook on or about April 20, 2021; [and,] (7) he sent Ms.
Solomon a threatening message via Facebook on or about
May 4, 2021.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-3-
J-A06013-23
...
A bench trial was held [on] December 29, 2021 at which
[time] Appellant was represented by counsel. He was found
guilty of all [seven counts of indirect criminal contempt (ICC)
and sentenced to an aggregate [term of 15 to 30 months in
jail].
Trial Court Opinion, 8/2/22, at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
Following the denial of Appellant’s post-sentence motions, Appellant
filed timely notices of appeal. At Docket Numbers 676 WDA 2022, 677 WDA
2022, 678 WDA 2022, 680 WDA 2022, 681 WDA 2022, and 682 WDA 2022,
Appellant raises the following claims:
[1.] Whether the trial court erred in admitting emails and
Instagram posts that were not properly authenticated to
prove that they came from Appellant?
[2.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant
violated a final PFA order?
[3.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of
the evidence?
See, e.g., Appellant’s Brief, 676 WDA 2022, at 10.
At Docket Number 679 WDA 2022, Appellant raises the following claims:
[1.] Whether the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant
violated a final PFA order?
[2.] Whether Appellant’s conviction was against the weight of
the evidence?
Appellant’s Brief, 679 WDA 2022, at 9.
-4-
J-A06013-23
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified
record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Linda R.
Cordaro. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for
the reasons expressed in Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion. Therefore,
we affirm on the basis of Judge Cordaro’s thorough opinion and adopt it as
our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling,
the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Cordaro’s August 2, 2022 opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/21/2023
-5-
06/09/2023 02-07
Circulated 08/09/2023 02:07 PM
IN THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF
OFCOMMON
COMMON PLEAS
PLEASOF
OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL. DIVISION
CRIMINAL
COMMON ATEALTFI OF
COMMONWEALTH
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA 'No..
No. 432 of 2020
432 0f 202.0 M.D.
M.D.
*No. 472 0f
No. 472 of 2020 M.D.
M.D
V. No. *5 of
No. 0f 2021 M.D.
No. 660f
No. of 2021 M.D
M.D.
WILLIAM M.*SOLOMON
M. SOLOMON II, No.: 06
No. of 2021 M.D.
96 0f
Na. 440 0f
No. of 2021 M.D.
Appellant,
Appellant. Na 441
No. 441 0f
of 2021 AM.D.
2o2_1 -M:D.
OPINION
OPINION
Linda K
R. Cordaro,
Cordaro,.j.
J.
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Appellant
Appellant wa:s comricted after aabench trial on December
was convicted 29,.2021
December 29, (7)
2021 on seven (7)
'counts of indirect
counts of indirect criminal contempt
contempt for Aolatiou.of
violation of aafinal.
final PFA order. He was sentenced
iminediately
immediately*after trial to
after trial three (3)
to three io six
(3) to six (6)
(6) months
months of incarceration
incarceration on each charge;
on each charge' five
five
(5) sentences
() sentences were
were imposed
imposed as consecutive and
as consecutive two (2)
and two (2) were
were imposed
imposed as concurrent'with
as concurrent with
the rest, for
the rest, for an:aggregate sentence of
an aggregate sentence of.fifteen. i5 }.to
fifteen ((15) thirty (3b).innonths
to thirty (30) months ofof incarceration.
incarceration.
Appellant no W appeals
Appellant now ­ his convictions.
appeals his convictions.
PROCEDURAL B
PROCEDURAL ACKGROUND.
BACKGROUND
July i.3,
On July Appellant's wife,
13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather
Heather Solomon, filed
filed for aatemporary
protection of abuse (PFA)
protection order:against
(PFA) order against hire. a temporary order and
him. This court granted a
set aadate and.
and time for the final hearing. At that hearing on Ju1y
hearing. :At 2020 ;Ms. Solomon
July 27, 2020,
represented by
was represented by .counsel
counsel and Appellant appeared pro se. At the conclusion of the
hearing this. Court granted
hearing,;this granted a
a final PFA
PA order effective for two years
years:—
- until July 27, 2022.
2022..
Page
Pageiof 1.5-
15
Appellant
Appellant subsequently was charged
subsequently charged with seven
seven (7)
(7) counts of indirect criminal
cbiiten .pt for
contempt for 1•icilatirig
violating the order. on
the order seven (7)
on seven separate.occasioils
() separate occasions between September 30,
2o2o:and
2o20 and Mai=
May 4,
4, 2021.
2021. A
A bench trial •vas'held
was held December 29,
2g, 2o2r
2o21 at wliicl
which-1Appellant
was
was represented
represented by
by counsel. He was found:*uilt}'
found guilty on all counts
counts.and
and sentenced to an
aggregate fifteen (15)
aggregate thirty (30)
(15) to thirty rnanths.of
(3o) months of ii.icarceration.iminediately after trial.
incarceration immediately after
On January
On 7;2022
January 7, 2022,;the Fayette
Fayette County Clerk of Courts received a
adocument from
Appellant's
Appellant's trial counsel:
counsel: "Motion
"Motion for.-Post-Sentence
for Post Sentence Relief Pursuant
Pursuantta
to Pa.R:Crim.Proc,
Pa.R.Crim.Proc.
720." However; there
720." However, bereis n61ndication
is no indication that-
that the document was served-
served on the Fayette
County Court
County Court Administrator.'
Administrator Consequently,.
Consequently, the document was added to the
the. case file, but
.it
it :was never presented
presented as a
a motion.
On June
On June 6,
5, 2022,
2.022, Appellant.
Appellant filed a
a prose Appeal.. on
pro se Notice of Appeal on. all seven
seven (7)
(7) cases
on
on the because this Cout
theory that because
the theory had not issued
C01n``t.had issued a decision on. the January
decision on Janu.aiT 7,.
, 2022
post-sentence
post-sentence motion i%rithiA one hundred and twenty
within
, twenty (12o).
(12o) days of filing,.
filing, the motion
was denied by
was denied by operation
operation of law
law as of
af.May 7; 2022.
May 7, 2022. Accordingly, Appellant
Appellant filed his Notice
of Appeal
of Appeal within
within.thirty
thirty (30)
(3o) days of date; This Court issued a
of that date. a1925(b)
ig26(b) Concise
Statement
Statement order and Appellant's
Appellant's how counsel. responded with a
new counsel a timely:Statement
timely Statement filed at
each of the seven above-captioned
each of above=captioned.matters,
matters. Qn
On July 25, P_62'2, tbe
2o22,
25,. , the Superior Court*sua
Court s
sponte appeals..
sponte consolidated the appeals.
FACTUAi.BACKGROUND
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
.On July 13,
On July 13, 2020, Appellant's wife, Heather Solomon, filed for
for aatenporary
temporary
protection
protection of abuse
abuse (PFA)
(PFA) order against
againsther
her Husband.
husband. This
'Tis Court granted the temporary
order.and
order and both parties appeared at the final -
parties appeared PFA hearing held July 27, 2020.
2020, Ms,
MS.
'The document certifies
The the .district
certifies service by hand delivery to the undersigned and the district attorney:
attorney. However,
i5 no record
there i in judicial chambers of delivery
record . iii delivery. -
Page aof 15
Solomon was:
Solomon was represented
represented by counsel, Appellant appeared.pro
counsel, Appellant se, and both parties gave
pfo :
testimony.
testimony. 'I
- iis* Court found Ms.
This Ms. -Solomon's
Solomon's testimony to be credible and granted aafinal
PFA
PFA for the duration of two years—
years - until July 27, 2022:
2022.
Appellant subsequently was charged
Appellant subsequently charged with seven (7).
(7) violations of the July 27,
27; 2020
final
final order,
order, specifically
specifically that: (i)
(1) he made
made'an
an Instagram post threatening Ms. Solomon
Soloman on
about``September
or about September 28,.:202'(j
28, 20203; 3; (2) be
he ,sent Ms. Solomon aathreatening email ;on or about
November 28,
28, 20205;
2.0204; (3) he sent Ms. Solomon
Soloman aathreatening
threatening email on or about
.December 22,.20205;:.
December 22, 20205; (4).he. Ms.. Solomon a
() he sent Ms. a threatening email on or about December
29, 2020 5;.(5) he broke
29, 2020;(5) broke: and tampered
tampered with the front window of Ms. Solomon's
Sol omon's.residence
residence
and tampered
tampered with and opened her postal mail on
on. or about January 28, 20217(6)
2x21;%,(6) he
sent Ms. Soloi7ion
Solomon thte* ateiiing messages
threatening messages via Vacebook
Facebook on or about April
April 20,.2o?i.; 6 (7}.lie
20, 2021;(7) he
sent Ms. Solomon aatlreatening Facebookon
threatening message via Facebook on or about May
May-4,
4,*2'62°1.9
2021.9
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant
Appellant raises three issues in his Concise Statement:
Statement: (1) the evidence presented
was insufficient to prove
prove the Appellant
Appellant violated the PFA (2) Appe
PA order; (2) l
lant's
Appellant's
convictions were against the weight
weight of evidence;
evidence; ((3)the
3) the trial court
coiii-tadmitted evidence that
that
was.not
was properly airthenticated,
not properly authenticated
2This Court's findings
This included .
findi.ngs.included that the
that the. Appellant
Appellant:threatened Ms. Solomon on on ;Iuly``12 hee pointed 'aa
2020 ;-:h
July 2 ;2oz0,
.gun at. her;
gun at her, struggled
struggled •Adtli.her,
with her, and attempted to prevent
prevent*her froiri leaving the.house.
her from the house
3676. W94
366 WDA 20222022
4682 WD42022
4682 WDA 2022
681.'WDA
681 2022
WDA 2022
668o WDA
6680 2.022
WDA 2022
7 679 WDA-2022
679 WDA 2022
8 678 WDA
868 WDA 20222022
9677INDA 2o22
67W42022
Page 3 0f 15
3 of15
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES
There are two issues to
There are to ``address
address-before
before aa. discussion of the merits
merits of this.
this appeal:
appeal: (X)'
{1)
the
the Notice,
Notice of Appeal
Appeal arguably untimely,
arguably is untimely; (2) arequest to Preppare
(2) a prepare aatranscript of the
proceedings
proceedings has not,been
not been received.
As to the
the first
first issue of timeliness
timeliness,;.
the Notice
Notice of Appeal was filed June
June6,
6, 2022, one
one.
hundred and fifty-nine ( 159
*)days after the December.
fifty-nine (159) 2o2r imposition of sentence.
December 29, 2021
'flee:
The record
record shows that the
the 'Fayette Cleric of Courts received and stamped
Fayette County Clerk stamped aa
document with
document with the title Motion
"Motion for Post=Sentence
Post-Sentence RelieOf``from
Relief from Appellant's trial.
trial counsel
on January 7, 2022,
January 7, 2022, which
which:is.
is inTithin
within the ten-day period for aa. timely post-sentence motion
under Pa.R.Criin.P: 72o(A)(1). However, there is no indication that the
Pa.R.Crim.P. 720A1). the "motion" ever
was
was served on the
served on the Fayette County Court Administrator as required by Pa._R.Crim.P.
Fayette County Pa.R.Crim.
576(b)1) and local rule F.CR.Crim.P.
576(b)(i)
: F.C.R.Crim.P.: 575 1)•• ° Consequently, the
575().° the "motion"
motion" was never
never
presented
presented to
to this
this Court for consideration. In fact,
consideration. *In fact, the
the existence of a
a post-sentence filing
only came
only came'to
to light
light Nvheh
when Appellant mentioned.it
Appellant mentioned it in his prose
pro se Notice of Appeal. This
arguably the'appeal
arguably means the appeal is untimely under Pa.
is untimely R.Cr iM...P. *
Pa.R.Crim.P. 72o(A)(3) since there was no
720(A)(3)
post- sentence inotion
post-sentence motion and the appeal
appeal was filed more than 3o days after imposition of
sentence.
"When post-sentencing
When post•sentencing*motions sentence.
motions are not filed, the judgment of sentence
constitutes a.final
a final and appealable
appealable order .for
for purposes of appellate
appellate.re'Viel7
review and any appeal
' F;C,R.Crim,P. 575U)reads
FCR.Crim.PR.
9 5750 reads as follows:
follows: "The
Ihe moving party shall file the original motion, Certificate of
Presentation,
Presentation, and anyany: attachments in. filing office before presentment in Motions
in the appropriate fling Court. An
Motions Court.
original
original propose.d order (if
proposed :order (if any.),
any, aacopy
copy.of tte Certificate of Presentation, Certificate of Service, -and motion,
of the
assembled inin that order
order,;shall be delivered to the court administrator and.every party of
and every other party of. record.
record,
Pursuant.to
Pursuant ta P.a.R:Crim.P. 576(B)(i), all motions and other.documents for which filing is required shall be
Pa.R.Crim.P. 576(1(),
served on each party
party and the court administrator so so:as to: be received'atleast
as to two ((2)
received at least two 2) business days before
preseritatio*n
presentation in.Mations.
in Motions Court,
Court, unless there are emergency circumstances specified in the motion requiring
requiring
presentation
presentation within
within a.
a shorter time."
4 0f
Page 4 Of 15
15
therefrom
therefrom must be filed
filed.withinihirty
within thirty (36)
(3o) days of the'imposition
the imposition of sentence."
sentence.
Commo7aweatth V•. Bori•ero,
Commonwealth v. 69a.A.2d
Borrero, 692 x58,159
A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. Ct.
(Pa. Super. Ct.19971
1997). Conversely, li]f
"[i]f
post-sentencing motions
post-sentencing rnotioris are
are timely
timely filed ..: judgment of sentence
..judgment sentence. does
does *not
not become final
for purposes
purposes of appeal
appeal until -the trial court disposes of themotion,
the motion, or the motion is.denied
is denied
by operation of law." Id:
by operation Id. An appropriate:order
appropriate order must
must be on record for the Superior Court
to have jurisdiction. I
Id.Here,
Here, the
the December 29, 2o21 imposi₹ion.
29, 2021 imposition of sentence is the.
the final
final :order
order on record.
record'.
There is no -order denying
There denying aapost-sentence
post=sentence.i7iotion
motion (by
[by operation of lash
law or otherwise}
or otherwise)
because, effectively,. no.
because, effectively, no post-sentence motioil was
post-sentence motion ever made.
was ever A.court
made. A court.cannot decide.
,Or
cannot decide, or
fail- to decide,
fail decide, on a
amotion
motion. ,never presented
presented to it.
it. This Court still will provide
provideIts
its analysis.
analysis
of the nierits,
merits, but hecause.the
because the December 29, 2021 order is
29, is *the
the only final, appealable
app ealab] e. order
on record,.
record, thin
this appeal
appeal arguably is untimely.
Asto``the
As to the second issue of
second issue of a
alack
lack of
of transcript, Appellant's pro.se
transcript, Appellant's pro se Notice.of Appeal
Notice of Appeal
certified. that
certified a complete transcript(s)
that."a:camplete trariscript(s) :of
of the non jury and sentencing proceedings have
nor-jury
be*6 rdered in this matter." However, there is no record that any request was received
been ordered
from either Appellant or.liis
Appellant or his counsel as under Ta.R.A.P;
Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d):and
1911(d) and Pa.R.J.A..
Pa.R.J.A. 4007(A).
The certification in
in the
the Notice of Appeal
Appeal does not.
not substantially comply with
with the form
form of aa
request as in PA.R.A.P.
request Pa. R.A.P. -1911(c), and it states
1911(0), states that transcripts
transcripts "have been" -.ordered,
have been" ordered, so it
cannotbe.deemed:a
cannot be deemed a transcript
transcript request
request itself. Under Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) if an appellant fails
fils
a
to take
take. the required
required action for preparation
preparation of the transcript,
transcript, "the
"the appellate court may take
such.. action'
such action as it deems appropriate,
appropriate, which may include
include dismissal of the appeal."
Page: 5. of
Pages Of 15
However ;because
However, because dismissal is not an autoimtie
automatic result, this Court will provide
provide. its analysis
of the merits of the appeal -.'1
1
DlscussION
DISCUSSION
Appellant's'first
Appellant's first issue is that the Commonwealth
Commonwealth. failed to produce sufficient
sufficient
evidenceta
evidence grave Appellant
to prove Appellant violated the provisions
provisions.ofof.the • o2o PFA
the July 27, 2020 PRA order.
order: His
second issue as to the weight states,. generally, that the protected party, Ms.
weight of evidence states, Ms
Solo M* on, "fabricated evidence,
Solomon, evidehce,.1ied
lied urtder
under oath, and manipulated the facts."
facts:" Concise
Coheise
Statement at
at 118.-
8. His third issue claims that video.
video and electronic mail eNgdence
evidence presented
at trial was inadequately authenticated.
authenticated.'
Appellant's position
Appellant's forth.in
position as set forth in his third issue is .that some``eAdence.should
some evidence should not
have been
been admitted because it lacked proper authentication..However,
proper authentication. However, ;tliis
this third issue
issue
iniplicates
implicates the first two as well
well because the allegedly improperly admitte&evidence
admitted evidence is
is
among the evidence this
among considered.for
this Court considered for its sufficiency and weight. There€ore,
Therefore, the
issue of whether video and electronic
issne electronic.mail.evidence
mail evidence was adequately authenticated will be
be
addressed first.
Auth ent ication. of
Authentication of.Evidence
Evidence
Appellant argues that this Court ermd.
Appellant erred when it. videwsand
it admitted video and email
that was not adequately
evidence that adequately authenticated.
authenticated. "All
"Al] relevant evidence is admissible,
except as otherwise
except otheilvise provided
provided by law."
law. Pa.R.E. 402.
4o2.*The.
The admissibility of evidence is i.Nrithin
within
discretion: ofthe
the sound discretion couit, which
the trial court, which* in
must consider the relevance and probative
TheThe. testimony
testimony:and
and facts as recounted in this Opinion
Opinion. are based on audio recording and notes of the trial
and sentencing pnweedings..
proceedings
12 At
n the December
At the Dec.mber 29,
29, 2023 trial, Appellant's trial
2021 rial, trial counsel
counsel objected to the admission of all exhibits
exhibits on the
the
basis of lack of authentication.
authentication
131t
Itis is unclear what Appellant'means
Appellant means by by "video
video evidence" since the only'exhihits
only exhibits admitted were copies of
emails,
emails, photographs
photographs attached toto. the emails,
emails ;and
and. an Instagram post. No.video
No video or audio recordings were
presenteTat.
presented at trial.
trial
.Page fi of 1s*
Page6of15
value of
ofsuch
such -eN deuce against
evidence its prejudicial effeet.
against'its effect. Commonwealth
CamThonwealth u..
vu. Gonzalez,
Gonzale, 09
109
A.3d 726 (Pa.
A.3d 711, 726 Super. Ct. 2or5)
(Pa. Super.. 2o15) (citation omitted), Atrial
(citation omitted). A trial court's rulings on
admissibility.will be.overturned
admissibility will not be showing of abuse of
overturned absent aashowing of discretion. Id.discretion. Id.As defined by
by the Pennsylvanla Rules *of
Pennsylvania Rules Evidence: "digital
of Evidence: digital evidence" includes
"em.0s,
"emails, text messages,
messages, social media postings, and images.``
socialmedia to_Pa.R.E.
images." Comment to go1(b),.
Pa.R.E. 901(b)
Digital
Digital evidence is subjeci.to
subject to authentication before it
it is admissible, that is, "the
proponent
proponent must
must.produce
produce evidence sufficient to
evidence sufficient support.aa finding
to support finding tbat the. :item
that the is what
item -is the
Arhat the
proponent elaims its
proponent claims is." Pa.R.E.
it is," Pa. R. E. 901(a),
9oi(a). In order to link digital evidence with.
with aaperson or
entity; the
entity, proponent must
the proponent must:offer either direct
offer either direct evidence
evidence *(e.g., testimony from
(e.g., testimony an
from an
individual i
\nth personal knovdedge}
with
, knowledge) or circumstantial evidence. Such evidence may
include. "Proof
include ownership,. possession, control, or .access
"proof of ownership, access'to
to a'de"rice
a device or account at the
relevant'tim.e'vd-len
relevant circuinsiances .indicating
time when corroborated by circumstances authorship:' Pa.R.E.
iiidicating authorship." Pa.R..E.
goi(b)(i1)(B)(ii).. However, although
901(b)(11)((i). proof of
althougli proof "ownership, possession,
of "ownership; control ;or access"
possession, control,
is probative other evidence
probative when combined with other evid en* ceof
of the idehtity;'this
the author's identity, this alone is not
authentication. Comment to Pa.R:E.
sufficient for authentication. gor(b).:Other
Pa.K.E. 901(b). eNrideni eof identity
Other evidence
includes identifying characteristies, content, or substance.that,
identifying -characteristics, substance that,'when. taken together
when tal,-en together with
all drwrastan6es,. links an alleged author to the evidence.
al! the circumstances, evidence.. M,
Id. The relative anonymity:
anonymity
of emails
eanails or text messages does not mean.
Text messages mean they are.inherently
they :are unreliable,.not
inherently unreliable, anymore
not any more so
than are written Commonwea ih v. Kaeh,
wr=itten documents which can be forged or copied. Commomwealth 3*
Koch, 39
A.3d
A.3d 996, (Pa. Super.
1003 (Pa.
996,1003 Super. Ct. 2011),
2011)., affd by an equally divided court;
affd curt, 1o6
106 A.3d'705
A.3d 705 (Pa.
(Pa
2014). Finally ;a
2014). Finally, proponent of digital evidence
a proponent need only offer sufficient
evidence.need sufficient evidence to
to
finding that a
support the finding
support person was
particular.person
a particular aufhot; it is not necessary
was the author; necessary to
to prove
prove
that: could.possibly
that no one else could possibly be the author
author. Comment to
to. Pa. R.E. 9o1.
Pa.R.E. 901
Page 70f
Page 7of 15
During the:December
During the December 2g, 2o21 trial,.the:
2g; 2022 Commonwealth. presented seven exhibits.
trial, the Commonwealth
Exhibits 1,
1, 2, and.
and ``33 were presented CP-26..-MD-0000006-2027 .(683-
presented at case CP-26-MD-0000005-2021 (681 W DA 2622).
WDA 2022).
Exhibits and( 22 were
Exhibits 11and were. copies
copies of an email
email: that Ms. testified sbe
Ms. Solomon testified she received from
from the
same email address Appellant to ' communicate with her while they Nvere
Appellant had used to were still
together. Exhibit
together. Exhibit:33 was a.photograph
a photograph that Ms.
Ms. Solomon testified was attached
attached to that
email message
message and which she identified.as of her leaving-her
identified as aaphotograph of leaving her house.
.Exhibits
Exhibits 44and s6.-,vere presented at.
were presented at case CP=2:6-MD- 000000.C -2021 (680
CP-26-MD-0000006-2021 (68o WDA 2022).
2022)
Exhibit
Exhibit 44was
was aacopy
copy of
of,an. email from
an email from the
the same email address
same email Ms..S61onion
address that Ms. had
Solomon had
testified belonged
belonged to the Appellant,
Appellant, and Exhibit``6
Exhibit 5 was a
a photograph that,,
that, again, she
testified.
testified was attached to that
that message,.this showing her buckling the son
message, this time showing son. she shared
with Appellant her driveway. Exhibit 66was presented
Appellant into the car in her presented, at case
ease.CP-26-WI
CP 226-MD--
0432- 262 0.(676
0000432-2020
000 2022). This exhibit was aacopy of
(676 WDA 2022). of. an
an. Tnstagram
Instagram post.
post that Ms.
Ms.
Solomon testified
Solomon pasted from
testified was posted account with a
from an account u.sername she
a username she knew-
knew to
to belong
belong to
to the
the
Appellant aid which had
Appellant and had aa,profile
profile picture
picture of Appellant. Exhibit
Exhibit' 77was
was presented at case
CP=26-MD-og00472-2020 (682
CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682 WDA 2022). This exhibit was a
a copy of an email that
Ms. Solomon testified
Ms. Solomon she received
testified she from.the
received from email address
the same email address as the other emails
the other emails at
at
Exhibits 1-5. She
1-5. She. also testified that the :
Appellant typically
typically used his:mobile'phane,
his mobile phone, not aa
desktop computer
desktop (which re*
computer (which mained in laer
remained her house)
house),;to access social media. This testirriony
testimony
offeret proof that
offered proof that Appellant
Appellant had of,'possession
had ownership of, possession of, control of, or access to
to the
the
email and '
email lnstagrani
Instagram accounts.
accounts. However,
However, this
this was not the
was not extent of
the extent of the evidence the
the evidence the
Commonwealth presented content,of
presented for authentication; more compelling was the content of the
emails and histagrarri post, each of
Instagram .post, ofwhich
which referred to events and circumstances involving
to events
Appellant Ms, Solomon.
Appellant and Ms. Salomon.
Page 8of
Page S. of 1¢
15
Exhibits'! and 2:2 included
Exhibits 1 and inclu ded .statements
statements such
such as
as "You think what
"You think what T
I pointed
pointed at.
at you
you was
was
bad, wait
bad, wait until you see.what
you see what I'm capable of
of. now,"
now, "Your
Your paper won't help you," and
an "You
"You
think the
think the army
army taught
taught me to be stupid?" Ms.
Ms..Solomon
Solomon testified that Appellant had been
in the army
in the referring to
message was referring
army and that the message to an incident in
an incident July 2020,
in July 2o•% when the
the
Appellant
Appellant .had pointed
pointed a
a gun at -her:and
her and their son.
Exhibit 4included
Exhibit 4 included the statement;
statement: "my girlfri end and I.fully
"My girlfriend I fully intend
intend to take
take Sterling
.and raise him s0*
and raise he. has a
so he agood
good chance at:a•future:"
at a future." The email specifically mentioned the
couple's son,
couple's son, and
and the final PFA order had awarded temporary custody of the child to Ms.
Soloinon.
Solomon.
Exhibit
Exhibit 66included aapicture. ofms.
picture of Ms. Solomon with some text stating:
stating: "If anyone
sees*this
sees cunt feel
this cunt feel free to.
to snake
make every shot count." Again,..Ms.
Again, Ms. Solomon testified that
Appellant
Appellant had .pointed
pointed aagun
gun.atlier.
at her.
7 included statements
Exhibit 7 staten*its -such as
as "Someone needs to.
to ruin your life
lifelike
like you're
ruining my son'gs
ruining my sori's.life," " I'll show you
life," "I'll you.what aa.PFA
PFA is. about,"≥and
is really about," and "Go
Go;ahead
ahead:and
and keep
running-your mouth I'll let.
running your mouth Sterling watch:"
let Sterling watch." Here
Here again is
is a
a direct mention of the couple's
son as well as of the PFA order
order. :
This.Court
This Court.considered.Ms..
considered Ms. Solomon's testimony and identifying characteristics
such as
such names or
as names or photos
photos.associated-with the communications
associated with the comrnunicatians but
but'also considered'the.
also considered the
specific
specific content of the
the. digital evidence presented. Here, the*
the combination of direct and
circumstantial evidence ivas
was enough to authenticate the evidence as
as. what the:
the
Commonwealth claimed into
it to be: contact
contact made
made by Appellani
Appellant with MS.-
Ms. Solomon.
The. discussion
The discussion of tbe'two
the two remaining issues -- sufficiency of the evidence and
weight
weight of the evidence --presumes
the evidence -presumes the digital evidence was adequately authenticated and
properly admitted:
properly admitted
Page*g*.of 35
Sufficiency
of
Sufficiency Evidence
of Evidence
Appellant argues
Appellant argues in his.
his first*issue.
first issue that evidence presented at trial was insufficient
to find
find that he was guilty
that he guilty of violating the
the.PFA order..
PFA order. Evidence is insufficient as
Evidence is as'a
a matter
of law
of law when
when the.evidence offered to
the evidence offered to support
support the
the verdict is in
verdict is coritradiction to
in contradiction to the
the physical
facts, or in
facts, or in contravention
contravention. to
to human experience and
human experience and the of .nature.
the laws of nature. Commonwealth V,
v
Wide»ier,
Widemer, 744 A.2d 745, 751
75 1 ((Pa.
Pa. 2000)
20o0) (citing
(citing Cam7i7onwealth
Commonwealth v:v. Santana, 333
333 A.2d
A.2d
876, 878
876, (Pa. 1975)). The Pennsylvania.
878 (Pa..1975))..The Supreme Court
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.has
bas'held
held.that
that "[ e]vidence will
"[evidence will be
deemed suffeient
deemed sufficient to support the verdict
support the verdictwhen
when it establishes each -material element of the
it. establishes
charged acid
crime charged the commission thereof by
an the by the
the accused, :beyond aareasonable doubt."
751. The
Id. at 751. fact-
finder-may
The fact-finder resolve any
nay resolve doubts regarding
any doubts regarding aadefendant's
defendant's guilt
guilt "unless
"unless
the evidence is weal: and inconclusive
is so weak inconclusive that as aamatter of law no probability of fact
inq
may be drawn from the circumstances" Corhmonwealth
the. combined .circumstances.' Commonwealth v. Fortson,165*A.8d
Fortson, 165 A.3d
10,
10,*14
14 (Pa.. Super. Ct. 2017).
(Pa. Super 2017):
The Commonwealth
The Co mmonwealthimust
must prove elements :for
prove four elements for aacharge of indirect criminal
1) the PFA
contempt: (
contempt:()the order was
PA order was sufficiently
sufficiently definite, clear,
clear,. and
and specific
specific sa le av e no
so as to leave
doubt*as
doubt as to what conduct was prohibited; (z) the accused
(2) the accused.had
had notice.of the order;
notice of the order; ((3)
3) the
the
act constituting
act constituting the
the violation
violation must
must have
have been. of the
been of own, volition; and
the accused's own and. (4)
(a) the
accused acted
accused acted with
with wrongful
wrongful intent.
intent. Commonwealth z,.
v. Brumbaugh, 932 A; 2d id
A.2d 8, 110
108,
(Pa. Super.
(Pa. Super. Ct.
Ct..20o7}.
2007)
-On the:final
On the Commonwealth's motion, this Court took judicial notice of the final PFA
order at
order at the
the start of
of December
December 29, -2o21 that the
trial, including that
202-I.irial, the order was effective.July
was .
effective July
through July
27, 2020 through July 27,
27, 2022; that the Appellant
that the personally lead
Appellant personally had appeared,
at the
unrepresented, at
unrepresented, filial hearing;
the final hearing; that the order
that the order protected
protected Ms. Solomon;. and
Ms. Solomon; and that
that the
the
provisions Appellant was not to
provisions were that Appellant to "abuse,
abuse, harass;
harass, stalk, or threaten" Ms.
MS
Pate 10
Page of 1
o of x"i
Solonion,.he
Solomon, he was evicted fron-i``her
from her residence, he.
he tnras
was pi ohibited from
prohibited from. having any contact
•%pith Ms. Solomon, either directly
with directly or indirectly, and that temporary,custody of the
couple'.s child was
couple's was. with Ms. Solomon
Solomon.
There is little doubt that these provisions
provisions were definite, clear,
clear:, and specific, and, as
Appellant
Appellant was present
present at the final hearing,.he
hearing, he had notice.
notice of the provisions
proyisions and the
duration of the.
the order. Furthermore, the content of the messages Ms. Solomon received,
as
'as presented. by.the
presented by the Commonwealth, included statements
statements. of such a personal,. direct,
a personal, direct:
,and
derogatory nature that they could not have been accidental nor inadvertent.. Finally,
or inadvertent Finally; since
the Appellant
Appellant wa's
was present
present at the final-hearing
final hearing and knew its provisions, he did
did- act with
wrongful int6ht. when be
wrongful intent he undertook prohibited actions..
prohibited actions.
presented. evidence of direct and intentional contact made
The Commonwealth presented ade via
.email..and
email and indirect
indirect contact made via Instagram
lnstagram post
post- on four
foul of the seven
seven. cases.«
cases.l4.This
This
intentional contact alone would be sufficient.
sufficient to violate the no contact.
contact provision of the
PFA. However, the communications also included.threats
FA. However, included threats of harm, either direct or
or.
implied, which violated
implied, violated the provision
provision that Appellant was
was not to threaten Ms.
Ms. Solomon.
SoloiMon.
The eiridence presented
The evidence
- presented- on these.four
these four cases was sufficient to establish beyond
beyond aa
reasonable doubt that
that Appellant: violate ' at least one
Appellant did willfully violate one. provision of the PFA
PA
order, as it prohibited him.
him from any contact with her and from threatening her.
Two of the cases tried on December
Decernber 29, 2021 were transferred from Washington
2021
County, Pennsylvania.
County, Pennsylvania. 15 Ms. Solomon
Solomon testified that she moved to that county
comity on March..1,.
March 1,
2021., and that she afterward
2021, afterward. received private Facebook messages from an account that
Appellant had
Appellant used while they
had used they were still together. The account had the same profile
14 CP-26-MD-0oa0oo5-2021
4CP-26-MD 0000005-2021 (681
(681 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-0000006-2021
CP-26-MD-00006o6=2021 ((68068o WDA 2022), CP-26-MD
2022);:CP-26-MD-
0000432-2020 (676
0000432-2020 (66 WDA CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 (682
WDA 2022); and CP-26-MD-0000472-2020 2022)
(68 WDA 2022)
•5 CF-26-MD-440-2021(678
4(P-26-MD-440-2021 CP-26-MD-441 =2021 (677
(678 WDA 2022), CP-26-MD-441-2021 06.77 ti1'DA
WDA 2022)
Page: li:of
Page n of 15
photo of Appellant
Appellant as was on the Instagram profile
profile she knew to belong
belong to him. She
accessed the
accessed the.inessages
messages on her mobile
on her mobile phone
phone during
during her testimony and
her testimony and.read them aloud:l
read them aloud.66
She.also'testified
She also testified that the messages were in a
a single thread,*not
thread, not individual messages, and
individual messages,
that
that they
they were April. 2o,
were dated April 20 22021
2o2i and May 4,2
May 4, 02-1. The
2021. The'messages
messages included
included statements
such
such as
as "You ruined my life so
so 'I.fully
I fully intend to end yours,"
yours;" "When
"When IIget Sterling for good,
get Sterling good,
.you'll
you'll see who
ivlio gets the last laugh,"
laugh," "If there's one thing the Army me,- it -is to make
Army taught me,
count," "FYI
every shot count," FYI it's aafree country
country: an8
and I colne wherever .
I can ,come IZ. want. You. your
You and your
cops can't help
help you:"
you."
.11'Is.
Ms. Solomon's credible testimonial
testimonial evidence as. to
evidence as to the source and
and content
content of the
the
messages was sufficient to.establish
to establish beyond
beyond aareasonable doubt that
that Appellant
Appellant did
willfully
willfully violate
violate at least one
at least one provision
provision of
of the:PFA order as
the PFA order as it prohibited him
it prohibited him from any
from any
contact with her and from threatening her.
The only case that did.not email:or
did not involve email or social media evidence was an incident
that occurred January
Janua ry *28, 17Ms. Solomon testified that she was returning
2021.7
2S;2021. returning home in
her vehicle between 1o:oo a.m.
a. m. and. lo::30:a.m. when she..saw
an 1o:30 Appellant in his car,
she saw Appellant car, dxiVing
driving
toward
toward her on the
her on the street iyhere her
street where her House was located.
house was located. She
She attempted
attempted to
to follow him while
follow him while
she called
she called police, but she
police, but she was
was unable
unable to keep him
to keep him .in
in sight
sight for
for very long as
very long as he*was
he was
traveling at aahigh rate of speed.
speed. Upon:
Upon returning to her street.,
street, she waited for a
a police
police
officer to arrive -before approaching her house.
house, Wh en. she did so, she saw that her mail,
When mail;
which typically was delivered between 9:30
9:so a.m.
a. fn. and lo: oo.a:m.,
1o:oo a.m., had been taken out of
her nlailbox -and
her mailbox and one
one piece
piece of
of mail
mail was
was torn.open:
torn open: an
an envelope containing FBI
envelope containing FBI
background clearances that she needed for. employment'. In addition, her front'i.vindow
for employment. front window
•
(, .Hard
Hurd copies of the
the messages were.no.t transferYed..avcr
were not transferred with;the
over with case. files fron7•washington'
the case from Washington Count)
County,.
"CP-26-MD -96 =2021 (679
€P-26-MD-96-2021 (679 WDA 2022)
2.022)
Page i2:of
2of15 15
was cracked, and the'locks
the locks were broken off.8
off.ls Ms.
Ms. Solomon testified that,based
that, based on
on
AppelIant's
Appellant's address as it was listed on custody papers, he did not live on that street, nor,
to her knowledge,:did
knowledge, did any of his friends. or family live on the street. This court found Ms.
friends or
Solomon's testimony to
to:be the: circumstantial evidence sufficient to
be credible and the to. find
Appellant guilty beyond aareasonable doubt
doubt of violating at least one
dne*pro•rision
provision of the-PFA
the PFA
order as it
it prohibited him from being at Ms. Solomon's house and from stalking,
stalking,.
harassing, or tlireatening..her.
threatening her.
The*evidence
The evidence presented at all seven cases was
was sufficientfor
sufficient for conviction. The
pr irisions.of
provisions of the*
the PEA
PA were unmistakably clear, particularly the provision ordering that'
provision ordering that
Appellant:not
Appellant not have.
have any contact with
with Ms.
Ms. Solomon..
Solomon. Appellant was.
was present at the final
final.
hearing, and
aiid therefore.he
therefore he had notice of the
the. PFA and its provisions.:As
provisions. As there .was adequate
authentication tliat
that the emails and messages that Ms.
Ms. Solomon received
received .had been sent by
Appellant and theycontained
they contained specific statements directed toward her, there is no doubt -
own.volition.
they were sent of Appellant's own volition. Finally, knoNiring
knowing the provisions
provisions``of PFA.as
of the PFA as
clearly acted with wrongful intent when undertook prohibited actions.
he did, Appellant clearly a&ion .
The'eviden6e
The presented'neither
evidence presented neither contradicted physical facts nor contravened human
hurnan
and . the laws of nature, and i
experience and itiisufficiently supported
supported. conviction on all charges.
charges
Weight
Weight of the Evidence
Evidence
Appellant argues in his second issue that this..Court's verdict.was
this Court's verdict was against
against the
weight of Elie eN idence. An appeal on
the evidence. on. the
the weight of evidence can succeed
succeed only
only.by
by showing'
showing
that the: court "``acted
the trial court "acted capriciously or palpably
palpably abused its discretion." Choma
Chornu V,
v. IYer,
ler,
S*i A.2d 238,
871A.2d 2 3°x. 243
243 (Pa. oo5) (citation.
(Pa. Super. Ct. 2oo5) oni.itted). The remedy of a
(citation omitted). a verdict
Ms. Solomon clarified that all
Ms.
Is al' the.:Mndows
the windows in.her house%had
[ her house had been installed incorrectly so that the locking
tie locking
mechanisms were outside instead ofof inside.
inside.
Page 13 of.
of 15
against
against the weight of
the weight of evidence.
evidence is.
is .aa new
new trial
trial "so
so that
that right
right may
may be given another
be given another
opportiinityto
opportunity Thompson v. City of
to prevail." 'Thompson ofPhiladelphia, x}93 A.2d 669,
Philadelphia, 493 6.6 9, 672
672 (Pa. x985).
(Pa. 1985).
In
Inaajury
juryArial, [t]lie decision
trial, "[t]he of whether
decision of wlaether to grant
grant a new trial
a new trial based upon aaclaim
based upon claim that the
that the
verdict is against the weight
verdict is:agains#-the of the
weight of the evidence
evidence rests
rests. with
with the
the trial
trial court."
court." Choma,
Choma, * 871
871 A.2d
A.2d
243, "A challenge.io
at 243."Achallenge to the weight the.evidence
weight of the evidence is directed to the discretion of the trial:
trial
judge, who
judge, who heard
heard the sane evidence
the same evidence and who possesses
and who possesses only narrow authority
only narrow authority to upset a
to upset a
Juryverdict." Commonwealth v.
jury verdict." Commonwealth Sanchez, 36
v. Sanchez, 36.A.3d 24, 39
A.3d 24, 39 (Pa. 2.oii) (internal
(a. 2011) citation.
(internal citation
.0 mitted). In ajury
omitted).
. trial, if aajury reaches
ajury trial, reaches. aaverdict that
that "shoclzs
"shacks one's sense .
.
of justice,
justice," a
11.a
trial.
trial judge:lids.
judge has some authority to grant
authority to grant;relief,
relief, Id.Id,
However, because an accused does not have right to a
have the right a. jury
jury``trial
trial on aacharge
charge of
indirect contempt, in such proceedings,
indirect criminal contempt, proceedings, the judge is the
the judge the finder fact, the one
finder of fact,
that- "exclusively
that exclusively weighs the evidence,
weighs the evidence, assesses
assesses the
the credibility
credibility of
of witnesses,
witnesses., and may
and may
choose to
choose to beliove ail, part,
believe all, or none.of
part, or none of the evidence." 23
the evidence." 23 Pa.CS.A.
Pa.C.S.A. §8 6114(b)(3);
6114(10(3); Sanchez,
Sanchez ;
36 A,3d at
36A.3 at- 39.
39. The credibility of
The credibility of a
awitness
witness includes
includes questions
questions of
of inconsistent
inconsistent testi..mbny
testimony
motives. Id.
and improper motives.
Heave, Appellant
Here, argues specifically
Appellant argues specifically that
that "[ ₹
jhe alleged
"[the alleged victim of the Protection
victim of
froin
from Abuse Order
Order- fabricated evidence, lied
led under oath, and manipulated the.facts'in
the fcts
a in
order to
order to violate
violate Appellant;"
Appellant," and that this:
and that Court's verdict
this Court's was so
verdict was contrary to
so contrary to the evidence
the evidence
as to
to *shock one's*sense
shock one's sense of justice. Appellant's Statement at
Appellant's Concise Staterrient at 118-g.
8 9.
challenge. this Court's assessment of the credibility
These claims challenge credibility of
of ``Ms..
Ms. Solomon's
testimony as well as
testimony as the weight of the evidence presented.
presented. This Court considered both.
both the
and Ms. Solomon's
digital.evidence and Solomon's.testimony gave appropriate
testimony and gave weight to each,
appropriate weight each.
Despite
Despite Appellant's
Appellant's claim.
claim that
that Ms. lied under
Salomon lied
Ms. Solomon under oath, her testimony simply was
her testimolly'siinply was
not so
so inconsistent or obviously deceptive as would support such aa.claim.. As.discussed,
claim. As discussed,
Tage;14 Of 15
Page 14 of
the emaiis
emails and social media messages admitted into evidence were adequately
adequately
and.there
authenticated, an there is nothing in
in the record to.show
to show any
any of the evidence was
fabricat6d or that
fabricated that.false
false. ,
testimony was given..
given. The Commonwealth was
was. the only party to
only party
offer evidence; the defense did
did.not
not call witnesses or present
present any contradictory evidence
any contradictory
for consideration.
consideration,*The guilty. verdicts
The guilty verdicts here wei•e
were not against the weight evidence, and
weight of evidence,
they were not.capricious 5llock one's
not capricious or unfounded, nor do they shock tine's sense of justice
justice.
CONCLUSION
The .verdicts
The verdicts rendered.in
rendered in the above-captioned matters were based on sufficient
evidence to show Appellant intentionally violated at least one provision
provision of the.PFA order..
the PFA order
They also were based
based. on
on*a,carefizl
a careful consideration of the
the.weight
weight of.
of the evidence to prove
prove the.
the
.violations
violations and on digital evidence that had been adequately authenticated. This.
This Court
respectfully requests that the judgments be AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED:
BY THE COURT:
ATTEST;
N,C_
ATTEST:
<66.EC..-
Linda
Linda R.
•Z_
,
Cordaro,.Judge
R. Cordaro, Judge
Cleric of Co
August 20 .
22-
1, 2022
c
-
0
+
U
A4
Lo
r co=»
Un
te
-
a.
-...-.' ' 2±..
¢
83
. 0o
eo
-.. ,_,u4..
-
< aeaAce
i
le
e t.< Page 18
Page 1,5d 8
of 15