Opinion
J-S13026-20 No. 1350 MDA 2019
03-27-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. STEVEN DEVON GREENFIELD Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 11, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0003097-2017 BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Steven Devon Greenfield, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of eight and one-half to seventeen years of incarceration, entered October 11, 2018, following a jury trial resulting in his conviction for Criminal Attempt (Statutory Sexual Assault), Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI) with a child, Incest, and related crimes. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion filed November 19, 2019.
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a) (3122.1(b)), 3123(b), 4302(b)(2), respectively. In addition, the jury convicted Appellant of the following crimes: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a)(7); Indecent Assault of a Child, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7); Indecent Assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8); Endangering Welfare of Children, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1); Corruption of Minors, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii).
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the underlying facts. See Trial Ct. Op., filed 11/19/19, at 1-9. Briefly, over the course of several years beginning when the Victim was twelve years old, Appellant, the Victim's father, sexually abused her. Following trial, the jury convicted Appellant of the crimes set forth above, and the trial court imposed sentence.
In October 2018, Appellant timely filed a Post-Sentence Motion, challenging the weight of the evidence and a decision of the trial court to exclude certain statements made by the Victim during the investigation. Post-Sentence Motion, 10/12/18. The trial court denied Appellant's Post-Sentence Motion.
Appellant did not timely appeal. However, following the appointment of new counsel and collateral proceedings, the court reinstated Appellant's direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Order, 7/15/19. Thereafter, Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement; the trial court issued a responsive Opinion.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant] relief in the form [of] setting aside the guilty verdicts of Criminal Attempt - Statutory Sexual Assault, Invol[untary] Deviate Sexual Intercourse [with] Child, Endangering Welfare of Children, Indecent Assault Person Less than 13 Years of Age, and Corruption [o]f Minors, as the verdict was against the weight of the evidence where the testimony of witnesses contradicted each other and as such was incredible[; and]Appellant's Br. at 6.
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Appellant]s request to introduce statements of the [V]ictim made during the investigation, which statements would have been refuted at trial by defense witnesses if given the opportunity.
In his first issue, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence, highlighting minor inconsistencies between the Victim's testimony and the testimony of Appellant's girlfriend, an eyewitness to Appellant's crimes. See id. at 12-16.
In addressing an appellant's weight claim, we apply the following principles:
As a general rule, the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the fact finder who is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the finder of fact. We may only reverse the lower court's verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, our role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion.Commonwealth v. Castelhun , 889 A.2d 1228, 1234 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the trial court Opinion, we discern no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying Appellant's challenge to the weight of the evidence. The Honorable Christylee L. Peck has authored a comprehensive and well-reasoned Opinion, citing the record and relevant case law. See Trial Ct. Op. at 1-9 (summarizing testimony from the Victim and Appellant's girlfriend), 11-15 (acknowledging minor inconsistencies in the testimony but concluding that the jury was free to credit this testimony and resolve the conflicts, and opining that the verdict did not shock the conscience of the court). Thus, no relief is due. See Castelhun , 889 A.2d at 1234.
In his second issue, Appellant challenges a decision of the trial court to exclude certain evidence. See Appellant's Br. at 17-20. Specifically, Appellant wanted to cross-examine the Victim with prior statements that she made about her brother sexually abusing her and step-mother physically abusing her. See id.
The admissibility of evidence is within the sole discretion of the trial court. We will reverse an evidentiary ruling only for a clear abuse of the court's discretion. Commonwealth v. Allison , 703 A.2d 16, 18 (Pa. 1997). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused." Commonwealth v. Holder , 815 A.2d 1115, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
Relevant evidence is generally admissible. Pa.R.E. 402. When called upon to determine the relevance of proffered evidence, the trial court must consider whether the evidence bears upon a material fact at issue in the case, and whether it tends to prove or disprove that fact. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 638 A.2d 940, 942 (Pa. 1994).
Evidence challenging the credibility of an adverse witness is relevant. See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Woeber , 174 A.3d 1096, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding that evidence of the complainant's prior inconsistent statement, suggesting others had assaulted her on night in question—not the defendant—was relevant and potentially admissible). However, "a witness may not be contradicted upon a collateral matter" that "has no relationship to the matter on trial." Johnson , 638 A.2d at 942-43; see also Holder , 815 A.2d at 1119-20 (concluding that prior rape allegation against third party was immaterial to whether defendant assaulted the victim and was a collateral matter, unsuitable for cross-examination).
Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the trial court Opinion, we discern no abuse of the trial court's discretion in excluding the prior statements made by the Victim. The Honorable Christylee L. Peck has authored a comprehensive and well-reasoned Opinion, citing the record and relevant case law. See Trial Ct. Op. at 15-17 (concluding that the Victim's allegation against her brother was irrelevant to whether Appellant abused the Victim and that it did not tend to prove some motive of the Victim to fabricate an allegation against Appellant), 17-19 (concluding that allegation against her stepmother was irrelevant because there was no causal relationship between alleged physical abuse by the stepmother and the sexual abuse by Appellant).
Because Appellant may not challenge the Victim on a collateral matter, the statements proffered were irrelevant and inadmissible. See Johnson , 638 A.2d at 942-43. Thus, we discern no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying their admission. Allison , 703 A.2d at 18.
For these reasons, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Opinion filed November 19, 2019. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of Opinion to all future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 03/27/2020
Image materials not available for display.