Opinion
J-S49022-18 No. 391 MDA 2018
11-27-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WALTER MARK SMITH Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-01-CR-0000823-2016 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Walter Mark Smith appeals from the February 5, 2018 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for first-degree and third-degree murder. Upon review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), (c).
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. On the night of Friday June 3, 2016, into the early morning hours of Saturday June 4, 2016, Appellant and Mitchell Jones (the "victim") were on an alcohol and crack cocaine binge, spending hours drinking and smoking crack cocaine together. By the early morning hours the victim ended up at Appellant's residence on Chapel Road in Adams County, which is the location where the victim was later found deceased in Appellant's upstairs bedroom. At some point, the two got into an altercation during which Appellant, a physically imposing person, beat the much more diminutive victim to death with his bare hands. Sometime after the beating, as the victim was lying in a pool of blood on the bedroom floor, Appellant covered the victim's head and part of his upper torso with a large black trash bag. According to Appellant, he went to sleep and woke up the next morning to find the victim dead on his bedroom floor.
Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from the trial court's April 26, 2018 opinion. See Trial Court's Opinion, 4/26/18, at 2-4.
Later in the day on June 4, 2016, after some futile attempts to clean up evidence, including placing blood-soaked items in a washing machine, Appellant drove the victim's pickup truck to visit friends and advised them that he had gotten into a fight with the victim after a night of "partying together." Appellant told these witnesses that the victim hit him with a chair and knocked him down so in response Appellant "beat him to death" and that when he woke up the victim was stiff. Appellant's right hand was swollen during this conversation. Appellant told his friends he was going away for a long time and came to say goodbye.
After Appellant left, the witnesses, believing the victim could be hurt inside Appellant's residence, drove to Appellant's residence, entered through a backdoor, observed broken items in the house and eventually discovered the victim dead in Appellant's bedroom. One witness testified he knew it was bad as he approached the steps because a strong scent of blood was detected.
On Saturday, June 4, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Conewago Township Police Department was dispatched to Appellant's residence, based on a report that an individual had gone to the residence and discovered the victim's dead body. Upon arrival, police officers observed evidence of a struggle and broken items inside the residence and in an upstairs bedroom discovered the victim deceased, lying on the floor. The officers noted a large amount of blood loss and obvious signs of a struggle inside the bedroom, including a bloody handprint sliding down the bedroom wall. In addition, the victim had a black trash bag covering his head and a portion of his upper torso. Specifically, the victim was found with a pool of blood under his head with a badly beaten face, injuries to his upper arms and blood smears throughout Appellant's bedroom, including on the walls, on a recliner chair and on items within the disheveled room. Blood was also found on various items in Appellant's bathroom located down the hall from the bedroom.
Appellant eventually was arrested and charged with first and third-degree murder. On November 20, 2017, Appellant filed a pretrial motion in limine, objecting to the admission by the Commonwealth of various photographs depicting the crime scene and the victim's deceased body. In particular, Appellant alleged that the photographs at issue were "either cumulative, inflammatory or not essential to the Commonwealth's case." Appellant's Motion, 11/20/17, at ¶ 4. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered as follows:
1. Color autopsy photographs identified as numbers 55, 56, 014 and 016 are admissible as there is no longer any objection being pursued by Defense.Trial Court Order, 12/5/17, ¶¶ 1-8. The case ultimately proceeded to a jury trial, where, as the trial court noted, the Commonwealth
2. Color autopsy photographs 145 and 146 are admissible provided that the photographs are cropped to the general area of the eyes only.
3. As [Appellant's] objection to the admissibility of autopsy photographs of the Hyoid Bone, specifically photographs 113, 114, 117, 119 and 120, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted in part. The Commonwealth may introduce one of that series of photographs in color to further illustrate the testimony of its expert witnesses with regard to the hemorrhaging and Hyoid Bone fracture. The photograph may be introduced in color and presented via projection on the screen. The remaining photographs in that series are precluded as cumulative.
4. [Appellant's] objection to autopsy photographs of [Appellant's] hand, identified as photograph number 017 is denied. The Commonwealth may introduce that photograph in color and by projection on the screen.
5. As [Appellant] indicated during oral argument that he no longer has objection thereto the crime scene photograph identified as number 134 is admissible in color and may be displayed on the projection screen.
6. [Appellant's] motion to preclude the autopsy photograph identified as number 008 is denied. As the photo demonstrates significant bleeding and the swelling to the left side of the victim's face and considering the fact [Appellant] is right-handed, the [trial court] finds the photograph fairly depicts the injuries sustained by the victim. The amount and presence of blood on the victim does not render this photograph inflammatory. The photograph may be briefly displayed on the projection screen at pertinent times during the Commonwealth's expert's pathologist's testimony.
7. [Appellant's] objection to the crime scene photographs numbers 142, 160 and 159 is denied. The photographs fairly depict the victim at the crime scene. These photographs are necessary to show the appropriate detail of alleged hemorrhaging and injuries to the victim's left and right arms. The [trial court] specifically finds that the black and white photographs do not provide enough clarity or detail to adequately illustrate the condition of the victim's arms. The photographs are not cumulative. They may be displayed on the screen in color.
8. Photograph number 158 is also admissible to show the condition of the victim's head at the crime scene after the removal of the trash bag covering from his upper torso and head.
introduced 83 different photographs. The vast majority of the photographs were benign. The photographs included aerial views of the home where the murder occurred, the crime scene, Appellant following his arrest, the path taken by the witnesses and officers as they entered the home and discovered the [victim's] body in the upstairs bedroom, the washing machine with wet bedding inside depicting Appellant's attempt to clean evidence of the murder, downstairs living room couches, a hallway view up the stairs, a chair and bucket sitting outside of the bedroom, the bathroom taken from the hallway and other photographs from inside of Appellant's house.Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/18, 4-5. At trial, Appellant raised a claim of self-defense, claiming that the victim attacked him with a screwdriver. He also argued that he lacked the requisite specific intent to kill to sustain a conviction for murder in the first degree. Nonetheless, following a three-day trial, the jury, on December 7, 2017, found Appellant guilty of murder in the first and third degrees. On February 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. After a considerable delay, Appellant complied, raising a single issue:
[T]he [trial] court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence the photographs used in Appellant's trial without modification. Said photographs were unduly prejudicial in that, inter alia, they were unnecessary and unduly inflamed the passions of the jury to the extent that the jury was unable to reflect on the evidence in an objective manner.Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/10/18. In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding that Appellant has waived his assertion of error. Specifically, the trial court noted that Appellant "has failed to articulate which photographs he finds were erroneously admitted into evidence. In addition, Appellant fails to specify how the photographs were unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory." Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/18, at 2. The trial court, nonetheless, reasoned that, even if Appellant did not waive the issue, he still is not entitled to relief because the photographs were not inflammatory.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review: "[w]hether the trial court's admission of color photographs, depicting autopsy and crime scene was [in] error and an abuse of discretion, when the photos were inflammatory and possessed no essential evidentiary value to the case." Appellant's Brief at 5. At the outset, we note that Appellant failed to preserve his argument that the photographs in question possessed no "essential evidentiary value," because he did not raise this argument before the trial court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) ("Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.").
Similarly, insofar as Appellant challenges the manner in which the Commonwealth displayed the photographs to the jury, such challenge also is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Our standard of review is well-settled: "The admissibility of photos of the corpse in a homicide case is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of discretion will constitute reversible error." Commonwealth v. Wright , 961 A.2d 119, 138 (Pa. 2008) (citations omitted). An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather occurs where the court has reached a conclusion that overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Commonwealth v. Davido , 106 A.3d 611, 645 (Pa. 2014).
We now turn our attention to Appellant's argument that the color photographs in question, which he identified as photograph numbers 8, 142, 158, 159, 160, are inflammatory.
As the trial court pointed out, photograph number 8, 142, 158, 159, and 160 correspond to Commonwealth's trial exhibits number 97, 61, 62, 63, and 64, respectively.
When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce into evidence photographs of a victim's injuries, the trial court must engage in a two-part analysis. First, the court must decide if the photograph is inflammatory. Commonwealth v. Woodard , 129 A.3d 480, 494 (Pa. 2015). If not, the photograph is admissible if it is relevant and can assist the jury's understanding of the facts. Id. If, however, it is inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or not the photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors. Id. For a photograph to be deemed inflammatory, "the depiction must be of such a gruesome nature or be cast in such unfair light that it would tend to cloud an objective assessment of the guilt or innocence of the appellant." Commonwealth v. Dotter , 589 A.2d 726, 729 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal denied , 607 A.2d 249 (Pa. 1992). The visibility of blood in a photograph, however, does not necessarily require a finding that the photograph is inflammatory. Commonwealth v. Crawely , 526 A.2d 334, 341 (Pa. 1987).
In Woodard , the appellant was sentenced to death in connection with the murder of a two-year-old boy. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence thirteen autopsy photographs of the boy, twelve of which were in color. The Court, upon review, held that the trial court acted within its discretion when it concluded that the images depicted were not inflammatory. The Court reasoned that "the twelve challenged color photographs portrayed various parts of [the boy's] body and illustrated the nature and extent of his injuries, which would have not been readily detectable in a black and white photo." Woodard , 129 A.3d at 494-95. Moreover, the Court noted that the single black and white photo depicted an internal injury, i.e., the boy's lacerated liver. The jury in Woodard was not given the photographs to examine during deliberations, but viewed them in connection with the Commonwealth's expert's testimony explaining the findings of the autopsy report. Id. at 495.
The Court in Woodard further noted that even if the photographs were inflammatory, "we conclude, without hesitation, that they were highly probative as they related directly to the requisite elements of first degree murder, i.e., that [the boy] was unlawfully killed, as opposed to having drowned by accident, and that [the a]ppellant possessed the specific intent to kill." Id. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's contention that the photographs constituted cumulative evidence because the Commonwealth's expert testified to the nature of the boy's injuries and the cause of his death. In so doing, the Court pointed that the "[t]he mere fact that a medical examiner testified to the nature of the victim's injuries and the cause of death does not render the photographs of the victim duplicative." Id. citing ( Commonwealth v. Watkins , 108 A.3d 692, 724 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Pruitt , 951 A.2d 307, 319 (Pa. 2008) (holding that photographic evidence of the victim's injuries is not rendered duplicative merely because a medical examiner or other comparable expert witness has conveyed to the jury, in appropriate clinical language, the nature of the victim's injuries and the cause of death). Indeed, the presentation of testimony as to a person's injuries "does not render photographs per se inadmissible." Commonwealth v. Johnson , 42 A.3d 1017, 1034 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
Instantly, even though the Commonwealth and trial court urge us to find Appellant's sole evidentiary issue waived, because he fails to offer any specific indication as to how the color photographs could have potentially inflamed the jurors' passions, we decline to find waiver. After careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/18, at 6-13. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion in limine and permitting the Commonwealth to introduce the color photographs of the victim, depicting the crime scene and autopsy. See Woodard , supra ; see also Commonwealth v. King , 721 A.2d 763, 772-73 (Pa. 1998) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photograph depicting the manner in which the victim was tied and which showed graphic signs of the body's decomposition, including blackening of hands and secretion of bodily fluids); Commonwealth v. Stein , 548 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa. Super. 1988) (noting that a defendant "will not be permitted to brutalize his victim and then keep the jury from learning exactly how brutal the assault was."), appeal denied , 557 A.2d 723 (Pa. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's February 5, 2018 judgment of sentence order. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's opinion dated April 26, 2018 be attached to any future filings in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/27/2018
Image materials not available for display.