Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick

204 A.3d 527

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Joseph Bernard FITZPATRICK, III, Appellant

No. 259 MDA 2018

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 2, 2018

Filed February 19, 2019

Reargument Denied April 23, 2019

Christopher A. Ferro, York, for appellant.

Stephanie E. Lombardo, Assistant District Attorney, York, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:

Joseph Bernard Fitzpatrick III, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on December 6, 2017, following his conviction for first-degree murder.¹ Fitzpatrick maintains that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence and erroneously applied the coordinate jurisdiction rule. We affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the procedural history and facts of this case as follows:

On June 6, 2012, emergency personnel were dispatched to 2288 Old Forge Road in Chanceford Township, which is located in York County, Pennsylvania. EMTs found [Fitzpatrick] and his wife, Annemarie Fitzpatrick ["Victim"], down near the shore line of Muddy Creek. [The victim] was unresponsive, but EMTs were eventually able to get a pulse and she was transported to the hospital. A short time later, [the victim] was pronounced dead. Foul play was not suspected and the family began making arrangements; [the victim's] body was sent to the mortician for embalming.

Two days later, on June 8, 2012, the Pennsylvania State Police received a call from Rebekah Berry, who was employed by the same company as [the Victim]. Employees at Collectibles Insurance had found a note in [Victim's] day planner that they felt was "suspicious." The note said, "If something happens to me – JOE." It was dated June 6, 2012, and signed "A. Fitzpatrick." Upon request, Ms. Berry was given access to [the victim's] work email where she found an email from [the victim] to ‘feltonfitz@gmail.com,’ which was [Victim's] personal [email] account. The subject line of the email stated, "if something happens to me," and the body of the email read ‘Joe and I are having marital problems. Last night we almost had an accident where a huge log fell on me. Joe was on the pile with the log and had me untying a tarp directly below." This email was sent June 6, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Berry showed police the note and gave them access to [the victim's] email account.

After viewing the note and email, troopers contacted [Fitzpatrick] and asked if he would be willing to come in for an interview; [Fitzpatrick] agreed. [Fitzpatrick] was asked to again explain what occurred the night [the victim] died; he was never asked about the note or email.^[2]

On June 9, 2012, approximately two days after [Victim's] death and after the body had been embalmed, an autopsy was conducted. Dr. Barbara Bollinger, the forensic pathologist, determined that the cause of death was drowning. Although she was not asked to opine on the manner of death, she did state that she thought the circumstances were "suspicious."

From the point the handwritten note and email were found, the investigation turned from an accident investigation into a homicide investigation with the prime suspect being [Fitzpatrick]. Eventually, troopers discovered that [Fitzpatrick] was having a non-sexual affair with a woman named Jessica Georg, and was thinking of leaving his wife for her. When confronted, [Fitzpatrick] admitted to hiding [Victim's] phone from the police in an effort to hide this affair. Troopers also discovered that [Fitzpatrick] would gain approximately $ 1.7 million in life insurance if [Victim] were to die. After searching [Fitzpatrick's] work computer, troopers recovered two Google searches from around the time of [Victim's] death. The first search, done on June 1, 2012, searched for "life insurance review during contestability period." The second search, done on June 5, 2012, searched for "polygraph legal in which states." This all led to [Fitzpatrick's] arrest on March 6, 2014 – approximately a year and a half after [Victim's] death.

[Fitzpatrick] was formally arraigned on May 19, 2014, and Christopher A. Ferro, Esquire, entered his appearance on May 22, 2014. The case was assigned to the Honorable Gregory M. Snyder, who scheduled a pre-trial conference for August 18, 2014. After two extensions, [Fitzpatrick] filed on omnibus pre-trial motion on August 7, 2014. In that motion he raised several issues, however, because he only raises the issue of the hearsay note and email in his post-sentence motion we will not discuss the other issues. Specifically, [Fitzpatrick] argued that the handwritten note and email were inadmissible hearsay and the Commonwealth should not be allowed to present either as evidence. The Commonwealth countered that the note and email were hearsay but admissible under the state of mind exception. On October 20, 2014, Judge Snyder denied [Fitzpatrick's] request, and permitted the Commonwealth to present both the handwritten note and email.

The case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge due to Judge Snyder's reassignment into the Family Division. We listed the case for trial during the May term of trials.

[Fitzpatrick's] trial began on May 4, 2015. On May 13, 2015, [Fitzpatrick] was found guilty of First Degree Murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the same day.

Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), filed September 1, 2015, at 1-4.

Fitzpatrick filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court granted and denied in part. The trial court denied Fitzpatrick's request for a new trial but granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the basis that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence for the first-degree murder conviction. The Commonwealth appealed and this Court reversed the order, concluding, "[T]he record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reflects that the Commonwealth established Victim was unlawfully killed and that [Fitzpatrick] committed the murder with the requisite motive and intent." Fitzpatrick , 159 A.3d at 570. Following remand, the trial court reinstated Fitzpatrick's sentence of life imprisonment on December 6, 2017. He then filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Fitzpatrick raises three issues:

I. Whether [Fitzpatrick] was denied rights granted to him by the United States Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution when inadmissible hearsay, in the form of a note and email from [Fitzpatrick's] deceased wife, was admitted into evidence and used by the Commonwealth to secure a conviction on the charge of murder?

II. Whether the improper admission of inadmissible hearsay was harmless error?

III. Whether the post-trial motion judge is barred by the coordinate jurisdiction rule from correcting a mistake made by a prior judge during the pre-trial process, including, but not limited to the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence?

Fitzpatrick's Br. at 4 (suggested answers omitted).

Fitzpatrick's first two issues center on the trial court's evidentiary ruling regarding the admission into evidence of the note and the email. "An appellate court's standard of review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings, including rulings on the admission of hearsay ... is abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Walter , 625 Pa. 522, 93 A.3d 442, 449 (2014). Thus, we will not disturb an evidentiary ruling unless "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 evidence of record." Commonwealth v. Cooper , 596 Pa. 119, 941 A.2d 655, 667 (2007) (citation omitted).

Here, the Commonwealth argues that while the letter and email are hearsay, they are admissible under the state-of-mind exception. See Commonwealth's Br. at 29. It claims that, "[t]he admitted evidence was relevant as to [Fitzpatrick's] motive, malice, and ill-will toward victim." Id. at 27.

In contrast, Fitzpatrick argues that "the note and e-mail are classic hearsay, and none of the carved-out exceptions" apply. Fitzpatrick's Br. at 21. Fitzpatrick cites Commonwealth v. Levanduski , 907 A.2d 3 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en banc ), in support of his position. Id. at 24. He also notes that "[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already correctly asserted that the declarant's state of mind in a homicide prosecution is often times irrelevant." Id. at 24 (citing Commonwealth v. Laich , 566 Pa. 19, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060-61 (2001) ).

In Levanduski , the trial court admitted into evidence a letter written by the murder victim. The victim expressed in the letter that if he was killed, suspicions should be turned on his wife, Levanduski, and her paramour. Id. at 10. The trial court reasoned that the letter was hearsay but was admissible to prove motive and the relationship between Levanduski and her paramour. Id. at 10-11. An en banc panel of this Court held that the letter was inadmissible under many exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the state-of-mind exception. The Court stated:

Mr. Sandt's [the victim] state of mind was not a matter at issue in this case. Only when Mr. Sandt's letter is considered for the truth of the matter asserted, does it become relevant, that is material to and probative of [Levanduski's] intent or motive to kill Mr. Sandt. However, when considered for its substantive truth, although relevant, the letter is incompetent and therefore inadmissible.

Id. at 19 (citations omitted). The Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of sentence, concluding that the introduction of the letter was harmless error. Id. at 22.

Here, the trial court concluded that Commonwealth v. Luster , 71 A.3d 1029 (Pa.Super. 2013), supported the admission of both documents. N.T., Motions Hearing at 100. In Luster , the victim made statements expressing her fear of Luster and that he might do something bad to her. Luster , 71 A.3d at 1040. Our Supreme Court concluded, "[T]he victim's statement that she feared [Luster] and he was going to harm her is admissible because...