Opinion
2560 EDA 2022
01-12-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY L. MANLEY Appellant
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 27, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002909-2021.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J. [*]
MEMORANDUM
OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Timothy L. Manley, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered May 27, 2022, as made final by the denial of his post-sentence motion on September 6, 2022. We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case as follows:
On March 21, 2021, the complainant, Justin Caesar, was in the process of taking in his groceries when he realized that he may have left items in his vehicle. [Caeser] returned to his vehicle, directly outside of his home. Not finding any additional items, [] Caesar went to the front of the car, set his phone in the visor, returned to the back seat and proceeded to watch a video.
While inside the vehicle, [] Caesar saw a person he had earlier noticed, staring at him from the porch of another house on the block. That person continued to stare at [] Caesar and he came down the stairs, then began to approach [Caesar's] vehicle. As the person was walking past the vehicle, he fired two shots at
[] Caesar, who was struck twice. [] Caesar did not see a firearm. The person immediately fled the scene.
[] Caesar went into his nearby house, and 911 was called. Police and an ambulance responded, and transported [] Caesar to Presbyterian Hospital. At the hospital he was treated for graze wounds to his chin and shoulder. Responding police observed two bullet holes in [] Caesar's vehicle. Two fired cartridge casings were located on the ground.
Later that day [] Caesar was discharged from the hospital and went to the police station to meet with detectives. He was shown a photo array, which contained Appellant's photo, but was unable to make a positive identification of the person who shot him.
An eyewitness, Latia Southerland, was interviewed by police detectives [to prepare a statement]. [] Southerland reviewed the completed statement, signed each page and [the section] indicating that she had reviewed the statement. [] Southerland did not make any additions or changes to her statement before signing. In her statement, [] Southerland identified Appellant as the shooter of her neighbor. [] Sutherland also told police that she had known Appellant for years, and that prior to the shooting Appellant stated: "The next person who steer (sic) at me, I'm going to shoot them." [] Southerland also identified a photograph of Appellant shown to her by the detective, which [] Southerland then signed.
***
In investigating the scene, police recovered two .380 caliber fired cartridge casings, and a video of the incident captured by a Ring doorbell camera. The video showed the shooter behaving as [] Southerland described. The audio from that video capture includes an unknown person screaming "Yo, why did Tim do that?" moments after the shooting occurred.Trial Court Opinion, 2/14/23, at 2-4 (internal citations omitted).
On January 28, 2022, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, Southerland recanted her initial statement to police, as well as her testimony during the preliminary hearing. "As a result, both her signed statement and her prior sworn testimony identifying Appellant as the person who threatened to shoot the next person who stared at him and the person who shot [] Caesar[] were introduced as substantive evidence." Id. at 3. In addition, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that Southerland obtained services from the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, and possession of an instrument of a crime. On May 27, 2022, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years' incarceration. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on June 6, 2022, which the trial court denied on September 6, 2022. This timely appeal followed.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1), 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), 6108 and 907(a), respectively.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence?
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of witness Latia Southerland's admittance into the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program?
Appellant's Brief at 5.
In Appellant's first issue, he challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his various convictions. In Appellant's view, "the fact that the jury credited [] Southerland's prior identification of Appellant as the shooter . . . is shocking to one's sense of justice" because Southerland's prior identification was not only contradictory to her testimony at trial, but also that of the victim, Caesar, as well as the video footage presented by the Commonwealth during trial. Appellant's Brief at 16.
When considering a challenge to the weight of the evidence offered in support of a criminal conviction, our standard of review is well settled.
The essence of appellate review for a weight claim appears to lie in ensuring that the trial court's decision has record support. Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the trial court has acted within the limits of its discretion.
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.
An appellate court's standard of review when presented with a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quotations omitted), appeal denied, 171 A.3d 1286 (Pa. 2017). "To successfully challenge the weight of the evidence, a defendant must prove the evidence is so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted).
The entirety of Appellant's argument challenges the credibility of the Commonwealth's witnesses' testimony. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence. The jury heard the evidence introduced at trial and was free to determine the weight of the evidence and testimony. It is the fact-finder's duty to assess credibility and we may not substitute our judgment for the jury's findings. Moreover, the evidence was not so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocked the conscious of the court. Accordingly, Appellant's weight of the evidence claim fails.
In Appellant's final issue, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Commonwealth to question Southerland about her admittance into the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program. Appellant's Brief at 16. Appellant claims that such evidence was irrelevant and, to the extent it was relevant, was "extremely prejudicial to Appellant." Id.
Our Supreme Court previously explained:
The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1027 (Pa. 2012) (internal citations omitted).
Relevance is the threshold question for admissibility of evidence. Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 612 (Pa. 2008). "Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact." Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893, 904 (Pa. 2002) (quotation omitted). We previously determined:
Trial judges generally enjoy broad discretion regarding the admission of potentially misleading or confusing evidence. Trial judges also have the authority to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. See Pa.R.E. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury."). Furthermore, the function of the trial court is to balance the alleged prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative value, and it is not appropriate for an appellate court to usurp that function.Commonwealth v. Parker, 882 A.2d 488, 492 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted), affirmed on other grounds, 919 A.2d 943 (Pa. 2007).
As explained above, Southerland identified Appellant as the shooter in her initial statement to police, as well as during her testimony at the preliminary hearing but, ultimately, Southerland recanted her statement/testimony at trial. Accordingly, the Commonwealth not only introduced Southerland's police statement and preliminary hearing testimony into evidence, but also questioned Southerland regarding her request for relocation service assistance from the District Attorney's Office. In particular, the relevant portion of trial is as follows:
Q. Now, Ms. Southerland, that [is] going to sit there. I [am] going to ask you a few more questions before you take a look at it. Okay. Do you understand?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Wait to take a look at that for a minute.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You said that you do [not] recall being asked to move from where you live; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall ever speaking to anyone in the District Attorney's Office other than the ADA who was previously on this case about wanting to be relocated?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever relocated with assistance from the Assistant District Attorney and the Office of Attorney General in relation to this case?
A. No.
Q. So it [is] your testimony today that you never received any help in moving from your prior address to a new address?
A. No.
Q. It [is] also your testimony that you never received notice that you were admitted to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program; is that correct?
A. No, never.
Q. And we established earlier that when you testified at the preliminary hearing that was on April 9, 2021, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it correct to say that you have no recollection of finding out within five days of testifying at the preliminary hearing that the District Attorney's Office as well as the [O]ffice of Attorney General was going to offer you support in relocation to another address?
A. I never heard of it.
[Assistant District Attorney]: Your Honor, at this time, I would ask for the witness to look at [exhibit] C-19.
T[he c]ourt: All right.
[Defense counsel]: Your Honor, I [am] going to object.
[Southerland]: I [am] looking.
T[he c]ourt: Hold on one second.
[Defense counsel]: I understand what counsel is trying to do. Legal basis; not argument. I do [not] believe the witness has ever seen this document. Counsel is attempting to, I think it [is] the wrong document that she [is] trying to [use].
T[he c]ourt: The rule provides for it. Overruled.
[Assistant District Attorney]: Now, Ms. Southerland, looking at C-19, which was passed up to you, I [would] just like you to take a look at that document and it says about in the middle of the page says "RE" regarding, that [is] bolded. Then it says "Latia Southerland"; is that correct?
A. It looks like it [has] been typed.
Q. Yes. It [is] typed and it says "RE" meaning regarding and "Latia Southerland"; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Looking below that, it says, "Dear William," meaning above it says "William Curtain" from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Then it says, "Acting upon your referral, Latia Southerland was admitted into the Pennsylvania Association Witness Relocation Program on or about April 19, 2021 ending on or about May 17[,] 2021. Pursuant to your modification of a discovery request concerning expenditure for this witness's relocation, the following is a summary of the total expenditure paid to date in this matter." Did I read it correctly?
A. You read it correctly.
Q. Looking below that indicates expenses location, it says "rent, security deposit, and a hotel." Did I read that correctly?
A. All in the paper.
Q. Bottom of the page signed, "Sincerely, Daniel Brown, Chief Deputy Attorney General." Did I read that correctly?
A. Yeah.N.T. Trial, 1/26/22, 74-78.
We initially conclude that Appellant's claim of error is waived because trial counsel failed to raise a specific objection to the proffered evidence during trial. See Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014, 1021-1022 (Pa. Super. 2016) ("'In order to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial.' Moreover, '[a] party complaining, on appeal, of the admission of evidence in the court below will be confined to the specific objection there made.'") (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Houck, 102 A .3d 443, 451 (Pa. Super. 2014) ("[T]he failure to make a timely and specific objection before the trial court at the appropriate stage of the proceedings will result in waiver of the issue"). In this instance, defense counsel lodged a general, non-specific objection, which is insufficient to preserve the issue for our review. Thus, defense counsel's failure to lodge a specific objection to the Commonwealth's introduction of such evidence constitutes a waiver of the issue.
Assuming, arguendo, the issue was properly before us, we would conclude that Appellant's claim lacks merit. First, Southerland's admission to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program from April 19, 2021 through May 17, 2021, was relevant to the matter at hand. Indeed, it tended to explain why Southerland recanted her testimony identifying Appellant as the shooter during trial: fear for her safety. Second, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to Appellant since it did not tend to invite speculation, deflect the attention of the jury away from the facts, or instill a fixed bias against Appellant in the minds of the jury. See Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 151 (Pa. 2008) ("'Unfair prejudice' means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially."). To the contrary, Appellant and defense counsel eventually stipulated to the fact that the "District Attorney's Office in Philadelphia did admit [] Southerland into the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General Witness Relocation Program on or about April 19[,] 2021 [through] May 17[,] 2021." See N.T. Trial, 1/27/22, at 122. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.