Opinion
J-S42011-19 No. 3298 EDA 2018
09-06-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRYAN M. MONICA Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000794-2017 BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Bryan M. Monica appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed July 11, 2018, in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court sentenced Monica to an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years' imprisonment, followed by 25 years' probation, after he was convicted in a non-jury trial of committing numerous sexual offenses against his minor stepdaughter. On appeal, Monica contends the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of his statement to police when the interrogating detective destroyed the contemporaneous notes he took of the statement. For the reasons below, we affirm.
The facts underlying Monica's arrest and conviction are well-known to the parties and detailed in the trial court's opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/2019, at 1-7. Accordingly, we need not reiterate them in detail herein. In summary, the victim suffered years of sexual abuse by Monica, her stepfather, beginning when she was nine years old. In December of 2016, she confided in her best friend that she was being sexually assaulted. Approximately one month later, at the urging of her friend, the victim decided to report the abuse to her eighth grade school counselor. Before the victim left for school on January 5, 2017, Monica raped her. The victim immediately reported the abuse to her counselor, and both the victim's mother and the police were notified. See id. at 4-5
Monica was interviewed by police that same day, although he was not arrested or taken into custody. However, he was instructed by the police not to return to the family home. The next day, Monica appeared at the family home, armed with a handgun and threatened to shoot himself. After a five-hour standoff, Monica surrendered and was admitted to Norristown State Hospital on an emergency 302 order. When Monica was released on January 12, 2017, now-retired Upper Providence Police Detective Raymond Bechtel, and Limerick Township Police Detective Ernie Morris, took him into custody. See id. at 5-6. Monica executed a Miranda waiver, and was transported to the Upper Providence Police Department for an interview. Although the interview was recorded on video surveillance, there was no accompanying audio recording. Before conducting a formal question and answer session, the detectives conducted a pre-interview, during which time Detective Bechtel took handwritten notes of Monica's responses. Monica "ultimately confessed to fondling [the victim] over the years, but adamantly denied that he ever penetrated her with his penis." Id. at 7 (footnote omitted). When the detectives asked Monica to make a formal question and answer statement, he refused to do so. He also refused to sign Detective Bechtel's handwritten notes. At that point, the interview concluded. See id. Detective Bechtel testified he incorporated his notes into his formal report, which was provided to Monica during discovery, and then destroyed them, as was his standard practice. See N.T., 3/15/2018, at 37-42.
See 50 P.S. § 7302 ("Involuntary emergency examination and treatment authorized by a physician--Not to exceed one hundred twenty hours").
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Monica was subsequently charged with 90 offenses, including, inter alia, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault and indecent exposure, for his sexual crimes against the victim, and recklessly endangering another person and carrying a firearm without a license for the police standoff. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial, which began on March 14, 2018. Prior to the start of trial, Monica's counsel requested the Commonwealth turn over the detective's handwritten notes from the interview. See N.T., 3/14/2018, at 3-4. When the Commonwealth informed the court that the notes had been destroyed, the court decided to hold a hearing on the issue before determining the admissibility of Monica's statement. The next day, Monica filed a written motion to suppress his statement to police based upon a Brady violation, and the court conducted an in camera hearing on the issue. See N.T., 3/15/2018, at 5-75. After taking testimony from both Detectives Bechtel and Norris, the trial court concluded there was no Brady violation. Nevertheless, the court determined it would "consider what happened as spoliation of evidence" and stated it would "follow the standard instruction on spoliation that I am to believe that there is contents in those notes that would be favorable to the defendant." Id. at 74-75.
See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1) and (7), 3126(a)(2), (7), and (8), and 3127(a), respectively.
See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2705 and 6106(a)(1), respectively.
Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
On March 16, 2018, the trial court found Monica guilty of all 90 offenses. The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 25 to 50 years' imprisonment followed by 25 years' probation, on July 11, 2018. Monica filed a timely post- sentence motion on July 23, 2018, which the trial court denied on October 12, 2018. This timely appeal follows.
We note that, pursuant to Pa.Crim.P. 720, a "post-sentence motion shall be filed no later than 10 days after imposition of sentence." Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(1). Because, in the present case, the tenth day fell on a Saturday, Monica had until Monday, July 23, 2018, to file a timely post-sentence motion. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908. Furthermore, we acknowledge the post-sentence motion herein was time-stamped and docketed on July 25, 2018. However, the trial court stated in its opinion that the motion was timely filed on July 23, 2018. Moreover, the motion includes a certificate of service, which indicates it was hand delivered to the trial judge on July 23, 2018. Accordingly, we will consider the motion to have been timely filed.
On November 19, 2018, the trial court ordered Monica to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Monica complied with the court's directive, and filed a concise statement on December 3, 2018.
Monica's sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court "improperly allow[ed] evidence of [] Monica's statement to the police when Detective Raymond Bechtel destroyed contemporaneous notes of [] Monica's statement." Monica's Brief at 5. Monica insists the Commonwealth's failure to produce the notes violated Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573 ("Pretrial Discovery and Inspection"), and constituted a Brady violation. He maintains it was the Commonwealth's duty to preserve this evidence, which consisted of a "simultaneous recording of [] Monica's actual words of his alleged confession." Id. at 10-11. Instead, Monica insists the Commonwealth was permitted to "introduce an editorialized, police-rendered narrative which the police admit is basically their interpretation of what [] Monica said." Id. at 11. Accordingly, he contends all evidence of his statement should have been suppressed.
When considering a Brady claim, we must bear in mind the following:
In Brady , the United States Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady , 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even if there has been no request by the accused, United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), and that the duty may encompass impeachment evidence as well as directly exculpatory evidence, United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 676-77, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380-81, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Furthermore, the prosecution's Brady obligation extends to exculpatory evidence in the files of police agencies of the same government bringing the prosecution. Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. 419, 438, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1568, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); Commonwealth v. Burke , 566 Pa. 402, 781 A.2d 1136, 1142 (2001).Commonwealth v. Lambert , 884 A.2d 848, 853-854 (Pa. 2005). Accordingly, "[a] Brady violation comprises three elements: 1) suppression by the prosecution 2) of evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, favorable to the defendant, [and] 3) to the prejudice of the defendant." Commonwealth v. Paddy , 800 A.2d 294, 305 (Pa. 2002). Furthermore, "[w]hen the [Commonwealth] fails to preserve evidence that is 'potentially useful,' there is no federal due process violation 'unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police.'" Commonwealth v. Chamberlain , 30 A.3d 381, 402 (Pa. 2011), quoting Arizona v . Youngblood , 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 986 (2012).
On the question of materiality, the Court has noted that "[s]uch evidence is material 'if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" Strickler v. Greene , 527 U.S. 263, 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (quoting Bagley , 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S. Ct. at 3383). The materiality inquiry is not just a matter of determining whether, after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the jury's conclusions. "Rather, the question is whether 'the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.'" Stickler , 257 U.S. at 290, 119 S.Ct. at 1952 (quoting Kyles , 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. at 1566).
After an independent review of the record, the parties' briefs and the relevant statutory and case law, we find the trial court thoroughly addressed and properly disposed of Monica's claim in its opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/2019, at 9-22 (holding: (1) Monica failed to establish a Brady violation because (a) he failed to demonstrate the detective destroyed his notes of the interview in bad faith, (b) the substance of those notes was incorporated in the police report, and (c) Monica failed to prove prejudice because, "[g]iven the overwhelming evidence of [his] guilt, any favorable evidence allegedly memorialized in [the detective's] handwritten notes" would not have undermined the verdict; and (2) nonetheless, because the notes should have been "preserved and produced," the court applied the spoliation of evidence presumption that the notes would have contained evidence favorable to Monica). Accordingly, we conclude Monica is entitled to no relief on the sole issue he raised on appeal, and we rest on the trial court's well-reasoned basis.
See Trial Court Opinion, 3/6/2019, at 13-14.
See id. at 15-17.
Id. at 17.
Id. at 21.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court opinion in the event of further proceedings. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/6/19
Image materials not available for display.