From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Ramsey

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 30, 2016
No. 2198 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 30, 2016)

Opinion

J-S62013-16 No. 2198 MDA 2015

09-30-2016

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EDWARD RAMSEY Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 19, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-CR-0004499-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.:

Appellant Edward Ramsey appeals from the October 19, 2015 judgment of sentence entered in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas following his jury trial conviction for robbery (threat of immediate serious bodily injury). We affirm.

The trial court accurately sets forth the factual and procedural history in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and we have no need to restate them here. 1925(a) Opinion, 3/16/2016, at 1-8.

On page one of its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court states the jury trial occurred in 2016, however, the jury trial actually occurred in 2015.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

I. Did not the court err in denying [Appellant's] motion to preclude the Commonwealth from introducing testimony from an expert in handwriting analysis when such testimony was improper expert testimony and was otherwise irrelevant?

II. Did not the [trial] court abuse its discretion by failing to grant [Appellant] a new trial on the basis that the guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence?
Appellant's Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Appellant's first issue challenges the admission of expert testimony. This court applies the following standard of review in cases involving the admission of expert testimony:

[T]he admission of expert testimony is a matter left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and its rulings thereon will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. An expert's testimony is admissible when it is based on facts of record and will not cause confusion or prejudice.
Commonwealth v. Watson , 945 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa.Super.2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Appellant's second issue challenges the weight of the evidence. "One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the [trial] court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Clay , 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa.2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745 (Pa.2000)). A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence. Commonwealth v. Charlton , 902 A.2d 554, 561 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d 933 (Pa.2006). A trial judge should not grant a new trial due to "a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion." Clay , 64 A.3d at 1055. Instead, the trial court must examine whether "'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.'" Id. (quoting Widmer , 744 A.2d at 752). Only where the jury verdict "is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice" should a trial court afford a defendant a new trial. Id.

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Richard A. Lewis, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See 1925(a) Opinion, at 8-15) (finding: (1) opinion of handwriting expert properly admitted where: expert had specialized knowledge beyond that of layperson; expert's analysis and conclusion were based on reasonable degree of scientific certainty; expert concluded Appellant probably wrote note; expert testified as to factors considered in her determination and her analysis; expert's opinion fell at top of 9-point scale, which is more refined scale used and recommended by those in her profession; and expert's work was peer-reviewed; (2) expert opinion: relevant where it evidenced Appellant's intent when he entered bank and testimony made material fact, i.e., who wrote note, more or less likely, and not so prejudicial as to require exclusion; and (3) verdict not against weight of evidence where: bank employee testified that his identification of Appellant as person who robbed bank was based on "first hand" experience on date of incident and weight to be afforded to fact that employee had seen email from bank with Appellant's picture was for jury to determine; although expert in fingerprint analysis could not determine age of fingerprint, bank employee's testimony established Appellant exited from bank and touched door where print was retrieved; and, as discussed above, court properly admitted testimony of handwriting expert). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/30/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Ramsey

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 30, 2016
No. 2198 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 30, 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Ramsey

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EDWARD RAMSEY Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 30, 2016

Citations

No. 2198 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 30, 2016)