Opinion
J-S75005-19 No. 175 WDA 2019
03-13-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JUSTIN SCOTT MYERS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 17, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-25-CR-0001453-2018 BEFORE: STABILE, KUNSELMAN, and PELLEGRINI, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Justin Scott Myers appeals from the December 17, 2018 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for strangulation, recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), two counts of harassment, and criminal mischief. Upon review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2718(a)(1), 2705, 2709(a)(1), and 3304(a)(5), respectively.
The facts and procedural history underlying this case are undisputed. As recounted by the trial court:
Appellant and the victim, Nicole Zimmer (Ms. Zimmer), were in an intimate relationship from approximately December 2015 through February 2018. During their relationship the parties lived together and had a child. Appellant and Ms. Zimmer broke up in approximately February [of] 2018 at which time Ms. Zimmer moved out of the couple's home and in with her parents. The
parties began sharing custody of the minor child pursuant to a Custody Order.
On the evening of March 20, 2018, the child was at Appellant's home according to the custody schedule. Appellant and Ms. Zimmer, trying to work things out, made plans for Ms. Zimmer to come to the home and spend time together as a family until the child went to bed and then the adults would watch movies. Appellant and Ms. Zimmer put the child to bed around 8:00 p.m. and stayed up drinking beer and watching movies late into the night. Ms. Zimmer had approximately four or five Labatt Blues over the course of the night. Ms. Zimmer did not know how much Appellant had had to drink.
After the third movie, Appellant looked at Ms. Zimmer and said, "That's why you slept with my brother." At first Ms. Zimmer thought Appellant was joking but he began to get angry and screamed at her. Appellant threw an open beer can, hitting Ms. Zimmer and leaving a bruise on her chest. Ms. Zimmer left the room to clean herself off and Appellant walked toward her screaming. Appellant pinned Ms. Zimmer's back against the hallway wall, grabbed her around her neck, and squeezed. Ms. Zimmer could not breathe or escape from Appellant's grip. Right before Ms. Zimmer lost consciousness, Appellant released her and she collapsed on the floor. Appellant then grabbed Ms. Zimmer by her ankles, drug her to the front door, and threw her outside.
After a few minutes, Ms. Zimmer reentered the house to retrieve her purse, phone and car keys and then left the premises. Appellant began texting Ms. Zimmer apologizing and asking her to come back to talk. Ms. Zimmer returned to the home. Appellant had calmed down and the parties talked for ten to twenty minutes. Suddenly, Appellant became agitated again and left the property.
When Appellant didn't return after some time, Ms. Zimmer became worried and attempted to call his cell phone. When she called his phone number, Ms. Zimmer noticed Appellant's cell phone lighting up from the bedroom floor. Ms. Zimmer picked up the phone and looked at it, and found messages from other girls.
When Appellant finally returned home, Ms. Zimmer confronted him about the messages from other girls. The couple began arguing again and Appellant threw Ms. Zimmer's keys down the hallway where they shattered, and smashed her cell phone. Ms. Zimmer called Appellant a liar and slapped him. The next thing Ms. Zimmer remembered was waking up face-down on the floor with blood pouring out of her mouth and the feeling there was a hole in her mouth. Ms. Zimmer went into the bathroom to look in the mirror and found her jaw was cracked.
Appellant drove Ms. Zimmer to the emergency room. On the way to the hospital, Appellant told Ms. Zimmer they needed to make up a story of what had happened and instructed her to say she fell
down the steps. Appellant accompanied Ms. Zimmer in the examination room and when the physician asked her what had happened she complied with the made up story. The physicians at the emergency room confirmed Ms. Zimmer's jaw had been broken. Ms. Zimmer was sent to a specialist in Pittsburgh for surgery where metal plates were screwed into her jawbone and her jaw was wired shut to heal.
Ms. Zimmer reported the incident to the Millcreek Police Department on April 3, 2018. Appellant was charged with Aggravated Assault, Strangulation, [REAP], two counts of Simple Assault, two counts of Harassment, and Criminal Mischief.
On November 7, 2018, following a two-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of: Strangulation, [REAP], Harassment (strike and/or shove and/or kick), Harassment (choke), and Criminal Mischief. The [c]ourt declared a hung jury as to the Aggravated Assault. [The charges for aggravated assault have been re-filed and disposition is currently pending.]
On December 17, 2018, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate period of 40 months to 10 years as follows:
Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/19 at 1-4 (record citations and footnotes omitted).Count Two - Strangulation: 40 months to 10 years of incarceration.
Count Three - [REAP]: 12 months to 24 months of incarceration, concurrent to Count Two.
Count Six - Harassment (strike/shove/kick): 45 days to 90 days of incarceration, concurrent to Count Three.
Count Seven - Harassment (choke): 45 days to 90 days of incarceration, concurrent to Count Three.
Count Eight - Criminal Mischief: 45 days to 90 days of incarceration, concurrent to Count Three.
On December 27, 2018, Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied on January 3, 2019. Appellant timely appealed. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant complied, challenging a plethora of evidentiary rulings made by the court during trial. In response, the trial court issued a detailed Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
On appeal, Appellant presents five issues for our review, which we have reproduced verbatim.
We have explained:
Our standard of review over evidentiary rulings requires us to determine whether the trial court abused its 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. Henkel , 938 A.2d 433, 440 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied , 955 A.2d 356 (Pa. 2008).
[I.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it sua sponte halted defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant regarding her reasons for not removing her child from the home the night of the incident in question where this line of questioning was relevant and the court's ruling prohibited counsel from highlighting the inconsistencies in the complainant's behavior and where the court gave its own explanation for the conduct?
[II.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it permitted the Commonwealth, over objection, to ask the ER doctor his opinion as to whether the injuries were "consistent with a punch", when in fact the doctor had been called as a fact witness, rather than an expert witness?
[III.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it permitted the complainant to testify about statements Appellant made to a third party ("he told my mom he pushed me"), as this violated the hearsay rule?
[IV.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it allowed the Commonwealth to elicit from Detective Shollenburger, over objection, information concerning decisions to charge in other criminal cases, as this was irrelevant and an impermissible effort to bolster the complainant's story and where the defense was foreclosed from a similar line of inquiry?
[V.] Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it permitted the Commonwealth to introduce the fact that the complainant filed a [protection from abuse ("PFA")], as the Commonwealth had failed to comply with the notice requirements under Pa.R.E. 404(b), when the fact was irrelevant,
and when the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value it may have had?Appellant's Brief at 9.
After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's issues on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/19 at 10-23. With respect to Appellant's first issue, the trial court explained:
Appellant was not limited in the scope of the cross-examination. The [c]ourt merely exercised its discretion in limiting speculation regarding the parties' custody order, which it deemed irrelevant to Appellant's charges. The custody order did not establish a material fact in the case, tend to make a fact more or less probable, or support a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact. No error occurred in limiting Appellant's cross-examination. . . .Id. at 13. The trial court also found without merit Appellant's second issue. The court explained:
Assuming arguendo it was error to limit the cross-examination regarding the victim not removing the child from the household on the night in question, it was harmless error. Appellant was given wide latitude in questioning Ms. Zimmer about her reasons for staying in the home after the incident and her reasons for not removing the child, presumably to imply she did not feel Appellant was a danger. Appellant was not limited in any other manner in cross-examination. The jury was free to believe any of the testimony regarding the night in question and substantial evidence existed to support Appellant's conviction. The limits placed on Appellant's cross-examination regarding speculation about the custody order could not have contributed to the verdict. No prejudice occurred and Appellant's claim must be dismissed.
Dr. Sangl's testimony regarding whether the injury was consistent with a punch to the jaw was rationally based on his on his personal experience as an ER physician. The testimony helped explain a possible way a jaw could be broken and did not rely on scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. The [c]ourt explicitly asked whether Dr. Sangl was expressing an opinion on causation and Dr. Sangl answered negatively.Id. at 15.
In rejecting Appellant's third issue regarding the statement Appellant made to Ms. Zimmer's mother, the trial court aptly reasoned that any statements that Appellant made to Ms. Zimmer are admissible if the statements are relevant, regardless of whether Appellant "chooses to testify or not." Id. at 21. The trial court further noted that Appellant did not seek clarification surrounding the circumstances in which Appellant made the statement to Ms. Zimmer's mother. Specifically, Appellant did not ask Ms. Zimmer whether she was present when Appellant made the statement to her mother. The trial court explained:
If in fact Ms Zimmer was not present during the conversation between Appellant and her mother, the alleged statement may have been inadmissible hearsay; however, even if it was error for the [c]ourt to overrule the objection, any error was harmless. The comment was elicited during vigorous cross-examination in which Appellant's counsel was accusing Ms. Zimmer of lying. Ms. Zimmer responded defensively to the accusation. The jury was free to believe any of the testimony regarding the night in question and the contradicting stories told by Ms. Zimmer. The single sentence, "[he told my mom he pushed me" with no further context could not have possibly contributed to the verdict. In fact, the jury was hung regarding the charges of [a]ggravated [a]ssault. The other substantial and uncontroverted evidence of Appellant's guilt for the remaining charges he was convicted of was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of any error was so insignificant by comparison that admission of the single statement could not have contributed to the verdict.Id. The trial court rejected as without merit Appellant's fourth issue. In this case, approximately two and one-half weeks elapsed since the incident at issue when Ms. Zimmer reported the incident to the police. As a result, the Commonwealth, over Appellant's objection, questioned Detective Shollenberger about charging decisions in other criminal cases where there was a delay in reporting crimes. In support of its ruling, the trial court reasoned:
The decision to permit the Commonwealth some latitude in establishing the timeline between the crime and the report was within the [c]ourt's discretion. The [c]ourt did not misapply the law, exercise manifestly unreasonable judgment, and did not exercise its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Further, before the question was posed, the court did not know whether the Detective's answers regarding charging decisions would be relevant and therefore admissible. As soon as the Commonwealth's questions began to venture into irrelevance, the [c]ourt immediately stopped the line of questioning.Id. at 23. Finally, the trial court also rejected Appellant's argument that it had abused its discretion in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce, without providing a notice to Appellant under Rule 404(b), the fact that Ms. Zimmer had filed a PFA petition against him. The trial court explained:
Assuming arguendo it was error to allow the Commonwealth to question Detective Shollenburger regarding whether it was common for a delay in charging in other cases, it was harmless error. The [c]ourt made it very clear that the Detective's decision to charge or not was not evidence in the case. The only testimony given by the Detective was that he had never filed charges so late after a domestic assault but had in other cases. This testimony could not have contributed to the verdict; in fact, the testimony could have helped Appellant's case as it supported his argument regarding the delay in Ms. Zimmer's reporting of the crime.
The admission of the singular reference to the fact that Ms. Zimmer filed a PFA, without further reference to whether or not it was granted or violated, was not in error. The [c]ourt set a very strict limit on when and how the information could be presented, i.e., on rebuttal and limited to the fact it was simply filed, and instructed the jury the filing of a PFA was not determinative of the events of the night in question. The [c]ourt refused to admit the supporting documentation showing the PFA was in fact granted as well as Appellant's guilty plea to the violation[.] [The court ruled that the Commonwealth's motion seeking to introduce into evidence that Ms. Zimmer obtained a PFA against Appellant after the incident and his subsequent violation of the PFA order] was untimely and the evidence had minimal probative value. No error occurred in allowing the limited reference to the fact that Ms. Zimmer filed a PFA.Id. at 20 (emphasis added). Accordingly, in light of our standard of review, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion rendering evidentiary rulings unfavorable to Appellant. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's December 17, 2018 judgment of sentence. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's May 23, 2019 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/13/2020
Image materials not available for display.