Opinion
J-A01035-16 No. 887 EDA 2014
04-26-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. WILLIAM THOMPSON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 9, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002719-2013 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
William Thompson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following a non-jury trial in which Thompson was convicted of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief-tampering with property, and criminal mischief. After our review, we affirm based on the opinion of the Honorable Roxanne Covington, dated May 5, 2015.
In response to Thompson's Application for Relief, this Court entered an order on February 13, 2015 directing the trial court to file its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and certify and transmit the record within thirty (30) days. The court's opinion was not filed until May 5, 2015.
Benjamin Rothstein owned the property at 418 W. Spencer Street in Philadelphia, where Thompson, who was Rothstein's former foster son, resided. Because Thompson had not been paying his bill, a Philadelphia Gas Works employee and Rothstein arrived at the property on February 12, 2013, in separate vans, to shut off the gas. While Rothstein was in his van, Thompson and his girlfriend came out of the house; Thompson threatened Rothstein, screaming that he was going to "f--- [Rothstein] up" and damage the house so no one else could live in it. N.T. Trial, 11/19/13, at 16. Someone, either Thompson or his girlfriend, threw a rock at Rothstein's van, at which point Rothstein called 9-1-1. Thompson grabbed the driver's side door and tried to open it, and when he could not, he kicked the van, denting the van and breaking the driver's side-view mirror. He also tried to rip off the license plate frame. In total, Thompson caused $3,300 worth of damage to the van. Thompson then went to the passenger side of the van, which was unlocked, and reached in and grabbed Rothstein's wrist and took the wallet from Rothstein's hands. He threw Rothstein's wallet onto the roof of a nearby building. When Rothstein later retrieved his wallet, his cash (between $80 and $100) and one of his credit cards were missing.
Following a bench trial before the Honorable Roxanne Covington, Thompson was convicted of the foregoing charges and sentenced to twenty (20) to forty (40) months' incarceration, followed by three years' probation. Thompson filed post-sentence motions, which were denied. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Thompson raises ten issues:
1. Did the trial court err in precluding cross-examination on several issues, specifically stating it was precluding counsel from making a record?
2. Did the trial court err in precluding the defendant from even making a record during [the] sentencing hearing?
3. Did the trial court err in precluding any inquiry or even making a record as to the complainant's own statements to the police regarding his motives to be [at] the defendant's residence, his intent on evicting defendant?
4. Did the trial court err in precluding cross-examination of Ben Rothstein, the Commonwealth's only witness, as to prior financial dealing between the parties, and why defendant was living in Rothstein's 418 Spencer Street property?
5. Did the trial court err in denying defendant his right to confront his accuser and cross-examine Rothstein on the eviction, the long term financial dealings, Rothstein's motive to lie, and bias?
6. Did the trial court err in denying defendant his due process rights, thereby prejudicing his right to a fair trial, which constitutional errors were so fundamentally unfair and in direct contravention of long established evidentiary case law as to evidence a judicial bias against Mr. Thompson?
7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it precluded full and complete cross-examination of Ben Rothstein about all
issue of financial interest, prior financial dealings, and monetary claims between the only two trial witnesses so as to permit defendant to make a record of the Commonwealth's sole witness' motive to lie and bias on the witness stand?Appellant's Brief at 9-10.
8. Did the trial court abuse it discretion when it precluded (by sustaining Commonwealth's relevancy objections during defendant's testimony) the defendant from testifying about all issues of financial interest, prior financial dealings, and monetary claims between the only two trial witnesses so as to establish the Commonwealth's sole witness' motive to lie and bias against the defendant?
9. Are the trial court's errors of constitutional nature because they denied defendant his right to confront his accuser guaranteed by Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?
10. Are the trial court's errors of constitutional nature clear and obvious reversible error?
Thompson argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded cross-examination of Rothstein regarding issues of "motive, bias and credibility." Appellant's Brief, at 12. Each of Thompson's issues challenges the court's exclusion of evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between him and Rothstein. The trial court allowed Thompson to establish the fact of an ongoing financial dispute between him and Rothstein. The trial court restricted the scope of Thompson's cross-examination of Rothstein, concluding that the details of their acrimonious financial relationship were immaterial to the criminal case before the court. Even if Thompson had a right to be in the house on Spencer Street on February 12, 2013, that, in addition to their financial disputes, were immaterial to Thompson's criminal behavior on that date.
The extent to which a witness may be cross-examined and the subject matter of the cross-examination are matters within the sound discretion of the trial judge; we will not overturn the court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Fletcher , 861 A.2d 898 (Pa. 2004); Commonwealth v. Cheatham , 239 A.2d 293, 296 (Pa. 1968); see also Commonwealth v. Britton , 380 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 1977). A trial court has discretion to determine both the scope and the permissible limits of cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Rivera , 983 A.2d 1211, 1230 (Pa. 2009).
We find no abuse of discretion here. The court allowed Thompson to demonstrate the existence of a financial dispute with Rothstein, in particular a failed real estate deal involving $25,000, but did not permit cross-examination on the details of that matter or the details of the history of their relationship. The court was within its discretion to keep the testimony focused on the criminal matter before it. We agree with the trial court's finding that Thompson's requested cross-examination was irrelevant under the circumstances. Rivera , supra.
We find no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge Covington's opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/5/15. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/26/2016
Image materials not available for display.