Opinion
2300 EDA 2022 2305 EDA 2022 2306 EDA 2022 J-S18011-23
08-14-2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN JEFFERY CASTNER Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN JEFFERY CASTNER Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN JEFFERY CASTNER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0006668-2019, CP-09-CR-0001155-2020, CP-09-CR-0004119-2020
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.[*]
MEMORANDUM
PANELLA, P.J.
Steven Castner appeals the judgment of sentence entered by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on October 25, 2021. Castner claims the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient to sustain his simple assault and burglary convictions. He also claims the trial court erred in refusing to issue a cautionary instruction following the Commonwealth's opening statement, wherein trial counsel objected to the argumentative and conclusive nature of the opening statement. We find Castner's claims without merit and affirm the judgment of sentence.
Across three consolidated dockets, Castner was charged with simple assault, criminal mischief, burglary, criminal trespass, stalking, terroristic threats, harassment, and two counts of conspiracy as well as charges for intimidating a witness to give false testimony and intimidating a witness to withhold testimony.
At Information Number CP-09-CR-6668-2019, Castner was charged with Stalking, Simple Assault, Criminal Mischief, and Terroristic Threats. At Information Number CP-09-CR-1155-2020, Castner was charged with Burglary, Criminal Trespass, Stalking, Terroristic Threats, Harassment, and two count of conspiracy. At Information Number CP-09-CR-4119-2020, Castner was charged with Intimidating a Witness/Victim to Give False Testimony, Intimidating a Witness/Victim to Withhold Testimony, and Stalking.
The Commonwealth presented the following evidence at trial to prove these charges. In October 2019, Castner and Lysandra Negron were having conflict in their romantic relationship. See N.T. 06/02/2021, pp. 12, 27. Negron had stopped responding to Castner's calls and texts and, from October 12 to October 19, 2019, Castner sent Negron hundreds of threatening and berating text messages. See id. at 27-58.
On October 19, 2019, Negron was at her home with her two daughters and her estranged husband Carlos Torijano. See id. at 10-11. Castner sent many threatening messages to Negron before arriving at her apartment building where he began banging on the front door. See id. at 29, 46, 61, 73-74. When Negron refused to answer, Castner went to the living room window where he saw Torijano inside and he began yelling. See N.T. 6/1/21, pp. 73-74; N.T. 6/2/21 at 61. Castner pushed the air conditioning unit through the window and onto the living room floor where it nearly landed on one of Negron's daughters. See N.T. 6/2/21 at 61. Castner then attempted to enter the residence through the space where the air conditioner had been, but he could not fit through. See id.
Castner retrieved a hammer from his vehicle and returned to banging on the front door. See id. at 63. This time, Negron confronted Castner in the hallway of the apartment building with the door of the apartment closed behind her. See id. 63-64. In his rage, Castner swung the hammer at Negron but missed. See id. at 64-65. He threw a punch at her which she was able to avoid enough to lessen the power of the blow that contacted her face. See id.
Castner then fled the scene, striking Negron's vehicle with the hammer as he left. See id. at 66. Negron called 911 and the officer who arrived on the scene took statements from the witnesses and photographed hammer-sized dents in the front door and vehicle. See id. 69-70. Castner continued to harass Negron with hundreds of texts and phone calls. See id. at 73-92. Even after his arrest, he continued to call Negron over three thousand times from the Bucks County Correctional Facility, as many as 149 calls in a single day, asking that she recant her statements, offering her payment to do so. See id. at 93, 98-99, 103; see also Commonwealth Exhibits C-9 (Intercepted Phone Calls), C-13 (GTL Report).
On June 3, 2021, the jury found Castner guilty on all counts. On October 25, 2021, the court sentenced him to 12-24 months' incarceration for one count of simple assault, a consecutive 4-10 years for attempted burglary, a consecutive 2-4 years for stalking, a consecutive 1-2 years for terroristic threats, a consecutive 7-14 years on one count of witness intimidation, a consecutive 11/2 -3 years on a second count of witness intimidation, and a concurrent 7-14 years for a third count of witness intimidation. See Judgment of Sentence, 10/25/2021. In total, the aggregate sentence was not less than 16 1/2 to not more than 35 years' incarceration. See id.
On appeal, Castner claims the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions of simple assault and attempted burglary. Additionally, he claims the trial court erred in refusing to issue a cautionary instruction following the Commonwealth's opening statement which he objected to as too argumentative.
In his first issue, Castner raises challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support two of his convictions. In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, this Court must review all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner to determine whether "there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Phillips, 93 A.3d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2014). This Court will not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury "unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances." Id.
First, Castner claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of simple assault because the Commonwealth failed to introduce any evidence to show he attempted to cause or caused bodily harm to Negron. Under Pennsylvania law, a person is guilty of simple assault if he "attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another." 18 Pa.C.S. §2701(a)(1). A person acts intentionally if "it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result[.]" 18 Pa.C.S. §302(b)(1)(i). Bodily injury is defined as "[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain." 18 Pa.C.S. §2301.
"The Commonwealth need not establish the victim actually suffered bodily injury; rather, it is sufficient to support a conviction if the Commonwealth establishes an attempt to inflict bodily injury." Commonwealth v. Wroten, 257 A.3d 734, 743 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). Substantial pain can be "inferred from the circumstances surrounding the use of physical force even in the absence of a significant injury." Id. (citation omitted). For example, courts "have found that a deliberate punch with a closed fist resulting in slight swelling and pain was bodily injury." Id. at 744. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, when Negron confronted Castner in the hallway at the entrance of her apartment, Negron testified that Castner tried to hit her with a hammer but she was able evade the swing so that the hammer struck the stairs instead. See N.T. 6/2/21, at 64-65. Then, Castner swung his left fist at Negron's face and, although she was able to move away to lessen the impact of the blow, the punch landed on the right side of her face which left a red spot and bruising. See N.T. 6/1/21, at 93; N.T. 6/2/21, at 65. Castner argues he did not intend to strike Negron with the hammer and, at their close proximity in the hallway, he would not have missed her and struck the stairs if his intention was to strike her. However, among the numerous threatening texts to Negron in the days prior to the attack, Castner texted Negron that he was "going to smash your brains all over your house with a hammer." See N.T. 6/2/21 at 29. In an apparent furtherance of that stated intent, Castner came to Negron's residence, brought a hammer into her apartment building, and swung the hammer in Negron's direction. As such, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Castner attempted to hit Negron with the hammer with the intention to cause her bodily harm.
Moreover, Castner's brief makes no mention of the punch to Negron's face. If the jury found Negron's testimony credible, the punch would supply sufficient evidence to establish Castner intentionally swung his fist at Negron's face to inflict bodily injury which did, in fact, cause an injury to her face. Therefore, upon review of the record in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to find Castner intended to cause and did cause bodily injury to Negron and therefore the evidence is adequate to support a conviction of simple assault.
Next, Castner claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted burglary because the Commonwealth allegedly failed to present any evidence which constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. Specifically, he contends there was no evidence he intended to commit a crime if he had gained access to Negron's apartment, and the hallway area was a public space.
A person commits burglary if the person "enters a building or occupied structure … with the intent to commit a crime therein[.]" 18 Pa.C.S. §3502(a)(2). For a burglary conviction, a person can be found to have entered a building if "any part of the body of the intruder entered the premises." Commonwealth v. Gordon, 477 A.2d 1342, 1348 (Pa. Super. 1984). Evidence of an intent to commit a crime can consists of either words or action:
While this intent may be inferred from actions as well as words, the actions must bear a reasonable relation to the commission of a crime. Once one has entered a private residence by criminal means, we can infer that the person intended a criminal purpose based upon the totality of the circumstances. The Commonwealth is not required to allege or prove what particular crime a defendant intended to commit after his forcible entry into the private residence.Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2002) (internal citations omitted).
"A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime." 18 Pa.C.S. § 901. To sustain its burden of proof of attempted burglary, "the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant had both the intent to enter the building and the intent to commit a crime therein[.]" Commonwealth v. Willetts, 419 A.2d 1280, 1281 (Pa. Super 1980).
When viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the record supports the jury's finding that Castner intended to enter the residence and took substantial steps towards gaining entry. Upon arriving at the site, Castner went to the front door of the apartment and began knocking on the door to demand entry. See N.T. 6/1/21, at 74. Once it was clear that Negron was not going to allow him in, Castner walked around to the apartment's living room window. See id.
Castner proceeded to push an air conditioner out of the window and onto the apartment floor. See id. While pushing the unit through, Castner broke the glass on the window. See id. He then tried to climb through the window into the living room but only managed to get his head through the window. See N.T. 6/1/21, at 74; N.T. 6/2/21, at 61-62, 141-142. After determining he could not fit through the window, Castner returned to banging on the front door. N.T. 6/2/21 at 63.
On appeal, Castner argues he never entered the apartment and only entered the hallway of the building which was accessible by an unlocked door for the general public to visit with other residents. However, he was convicted of attempted burglary, so the record need only support that he took a substantial step to enter Negron's residence. In any event, as set forth previously, the jury was presented with evidence that Castner stuck his head through a window opening into Negron's apartment. As such, the jury could have credited this evidence and found that a part of Castner's body did enter Negron's apartment.
Moreover, the record shows Castner intended to commit a crime within the apartment. In the days leading up to the incident, Castner sent numerous text messages threatening to harm Negron and Torijano with statements such as: "I'm coming to fucking there and if I catch him [there] I'm beating his fucking brains and I'm going to smash your brains all over the house with a hammer" and "you know what's going to be great when I tie you and [Torijano] up [in] chairs and make your kids watch as I torture both of you … I am going to torture both you in front of your kids." N.T. 6/2/21 at 29, 47.
He also made multiple threats to burn the apartment down: "when I get up there if your car ain't there I'm going to [light] your fucking apartment on fire you fucking cunt[,]" "I will burn everything up there right now I am not playing no more fucking games[,]" "when I get to your house I'm burning it [the] fuck down you want to keep playing games being a fucking whore being out I'm on my way to your house and I and light it on fire tonight[.]" Id. at 44, 46. On the day of the incident, he continued to send threatening messages and stated he was coming to get his clothes from her apartment and would force his way in if not permitted to enter: "if you don't let me in then I'm going to put your door wide open and take my shit" and "you know what I am coming there to get my shit and if you don't let me in I'm going to kick you door off the hinges[.]" Id. at 56-57.
Under Pennsylvania law, the Commonwealth is not required to determine the particular crime Castner intended to commit within the apartment, only that he had the intention to commit a crime. See Lambert, 795 A.2d at 1022. Therefore, the Commonwealth did not have the burden to prove whether Castner was there to assault Negron or Torijano, burn down the apartment, or break down the door to retrieve items in the apartment. However, as reviewed above, Castner did commit the crime of assault when he punched Negron in the face when she confronted him in the hallway. As such, this action provides additional evidence to support the conclusion that he intended to assault Negron if he had gained entry to the apartment. Upon review of the record, there is clearly sufficient evidence to determine Castner intended to commit a crime upon entering the apartment and he took substantial steps to enter the apartment. Therefore, we find Castner's claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted burglary to be without merit.
In his final argument on appeal, Castner argues the trial court erred in refusing to issue a cautionary instruction following the Commonwealth's opening statement, wherein trial counsel objected to the argumentative and conclusive nature of the opening statement. In his brief, Castner fails to articulate specifically how the opening statement was inappropriate or how the statement prejudiced the jury, simply stating, "[t]he trial court was asked to give a cautionary instruction to the jury so that it would not form its first and lasting impression of the case. The trial court refused to give such an instruction." Appellant's Brief, at 12.
Although Castner requested that the opening statements be struck or cautionary instructions be given at trial, on appeal, he does not allege the trial court erred by failing to grant his request to strike the opening statements but specifically argues the trial court failed to issue cautionary instructions. See Appellant's Brief at 11-12.
In any event, we conclude Castner's claim is unsubstantiated by the record. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's opening statement, Castner's counsel requested a sidebar with the trial judge and asked that the entire opening statement be struck, or cautionary instructions be given to the jury because the Commonwealth spoke as though the facts had already been proved and the Commonwealth mentioned forthcoming testimony of a 12-year-old witness whose competency to testify had not yet been evaluated. N.T. 6/1/21 at 60-61. Initially, the trial court denied the motion to strike or provide cautionary instructions. See id. However, after Castner's counsel finished his opening statement and the jury took a break for lunch, the trial court explained it would provide the requested cautionary instructions:
[Trial] Court: You had requested a cautionary instruction. While I don't believe it's necessary at this time, what would it be if you wanted me to give one when we reconvened?
[Castner's] Counsel: As to my request at sidebar? Sir, my request I -
[Trial] Court: I understand your argument. What would the wording of an instruction be?
[Castner's] Counsel: My request would be an additional clarification, a reminder - it's based upon the general instructions, which is, remember, lawyers have already made arguments and you may have heard certain things today in the arguments which are not, again, facts. You're only to decide the facts once they go out to deliberate.
[Trial] Court: I'll give a quick cautionary instruction once we begin.
[Castner's] Counsel: Thank you.
[Trial] Court: And it will be the general one, about understanding, taking into consideration what lawyers say, but it's not evidence. All right.
[Castner's] Counsel: Thank you.N.T. 6/1/21, at 66-67.
When the proceedings resumed, the trial court gave the following cautionary instructions:
[Trial] Court: Ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to go over an instruction that I gave you preliminarily. Like I said, some of these instructions you'll get so familiar with that you'll be able to recite them back to me.
During the course of the trial[,] attorneys will make certain statements, as the opening statements just were, and then there will be closing statements, and there may be times throughout the course of the trial that that occurs. I wanted to remind you that you certainly should be guided by the statements and arguments of the attorneys, but it is up to you to decide what is the information, what is the evidence, that you wish to consider and how much weight to give that.N.T. 6/1/21 at 67-68.
Pennsylvania courts have recognized, "[w]here an objection is made, then a curative instruction issued, appellant's only challenge is to the adequacy of the curative instruction." Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2009). Moreover, when an appellant did not object to the instruction, any claim in relation to its adequacy is waived. See id. Here, Castner does not appeal the adequacy of the cautionary instruction but argues that no instruction was given. As the record reveals, the trial court did provide the jury cautionary instructions in the manner requested by Castner's counsel and counsel did not object to the adequacy of the instruction. Therefore, we find this claim without merit.
Upon review of the record, we find all Castner's claims without merit and hereby affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.