Opinion
No. 3302 EDA 2019
06-14-2021
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Lisa SMITH, Appellant
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
Lisa Smith appeals from the judgment of sentence of life without parole, followed by an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years of incarceration. A jury convicted Smith of murder of the first degree for killing her four-year-old son, Tehjir Smith; conspiring to murder him; endangering Tehjir's welfare; and conspiring to endanger his welfare. We affirm.
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a) ), 4301(a)(1), 903(a)(1).
Smith and her boyfriend/co-defendant, Keiff King, began living together in early 2017. King was not Tehjir's father.
King is not a party to this appeal. The jury convicted King of the same offenses as Smith, and the trial court imposed an identical sentence upon him. See Commonwealth v. King , 3199 EDA 2019, 2020 WL 4783304 (Pa. Super. 2020) (unpublished decision) (affirming King's judgment of sentence over his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the discretionary aspects of sentencing).
Between 2017 and Tehjir's death (less than a year later), the child "endured months of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his mother [and] King." Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/20, at 3. This physical abuse included severe beatings with belts and shoes, slaps to the head, being required to hold a plank position for hours on end, and a scalding hot shower that sent the boy into shock.
The trauma rendered Tehjir too weak to stand or remain on a couch on January 22, 2018. Rather than call 911 immediately, Smith and King feared law enforcement would be suspicious of their actions, so they attempted to carrying the boy to a hospital. During the walk Tehjir lost consciousness, and Smith decided to call 911. King departed before the authorities arrived.
An ambulance responded first, and an EMT tried to revive Tehjir. Next, a police officer pulled up in marked patrol car, and the EMT informed only the officer that Tehjir was dead. The police began questioning Smith.
She lied about events and said Tehjir had an asthma attack. The police arrested Smith; transported her to the station for further questioning; and, after two-hours of interviewing her, provided Smith with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings. After signing a form waiving those constitutional rights, Smith continued speaking with police for three hours, recanted her false tale, and dictated a three-page confession to abusing her son to death with King.
Smith moved to suppress all of her statements to the police. The trial court suppressed the statements Smith made prior to receiving her Miranda warnings but refused to suppress her subsequent confession.
The case proceeded to a joint jury trial of Smith and King. Over Smith's objection, the trial court admitted King's redacted confession to the police as evidence against him. In doing so, the court instructed the jury that it could only consider King's confession to decide King's guilt, because King refused to testify, and Smith could not cross-examine him regarding his confession.
The jury convicted Smith, and the trial court sentenced her as described above. Post-trial, Smith moved for judgment of acquittal on the murder and conspiracy-to-commit-murder charges, because she believed there was not enough evidence to prove her intent to kill Tehjir. The trial court denied relief, and this timely appeal followed.
Smith raises the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress [Smith's] January 22, 2018, statement ...
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the statement of [Smith's] co-defendant, Mr. Keiff King, in violation of Bruton v. U.S. , 391 U.S. 123 (1968) ...
3. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Smith] had the requisite intent for the "intentional killing" element of the charge murder of the first degree or the charge criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the first degree.
4. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had the requisite "intent of promoting or facilitating" the commission of the underlying crime, in this case Murder of the First Degree.
Smith's Brief at 6-7 (unnecessary capitalization and citations omitted).
The learned Judge Risa Vetri Ferman of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County authored a detailed, well-reasoned, 1925(a) Opinion, which correctly disposes of Smith's four claims of error. We therefore adopt it as our own.
The trial court explained that the police properly treated Smith while interrogating her and engaged in no coercive conduct. Thus, Smith's post- Miranda statements were voluntarily given and therefore admissible against her at trial. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting King's redacted confession in the joint jury trial, solely for the purpose of inculpating King. The trial court's explanation for this evidentiary ruling is rational and does not override the law. Finally, the trial court correctly held that the Commonwealth introduced evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Smith intended to kill Tehjir through her repeated acts of horrific abuse and her failing to seek aid when his health and life were obviously in peril. The same is true of the conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction.
The parties shall attach the trial court's 2/10/20 Opinion to this decision in all future filings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.