Commonwealth v. Lehman

275 A.3d 513

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Paul Michael LEHMAN, Appellant

No. 776 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 5, 2022

Filed: May 11, 2022

Richard M. Corcoran, Ebensburg, for appellant.

Gregory J. Neugebauer, Assistant District Attorney, Ebensburg, for Commonwealth, appellee

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.:

Appellant, Paul Michael Lehman, appeals from the judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, imposed following his conviction for first-degree murder and related offenses. Herein, Appellant challenges three of the trial court's evidentiary rulings. After careful review, we affirm.

Neither the trial court nor Appellant provided a summary of the facts adduced at Appellant's trial. However, the Commonwealth provided the following factual summary in its brief, to which Appellant has not taken any exception:

On November 22, 2018, Johnstown Police Detective Sergeant Cory Adams ("Detective Adams") was called to a duplex on 827 Steel Street, in a portion of Johnstown known as Old Conemaugh Borough, for a reported homicide. [N.T.], 4/20/21, [at] 32-33. Detective Adams, along with other members of the Johnstown Police Department, entered the residence through the back door because the front door was secured with a deadbolt. Id. [at] 34-35. As he entered the residence, Detective Adams observed water running down the stairs to the basement and blood smears on the walls. Id. [at] 39[ ]. Laying on the floor immediately in front of the door that leads from the basement to the living room, was the body of the deceased victim, nineteen-year-old, [Deontaye] Hurling ("Hurling"). Id. [at] 40[ ]. Hurling was discovered with a fish tank that appeared to be smashed over his head. Id. Later, an autopsy revealed that Hurling's cause of death was exsanguination and bilateral pneumothorax caused by multiple sharp-force injuries (stab wounds). [N.T.], 4/21/21, [at] 8. Dr. Curtis Goldblatt, a board-certified pathologist, testified that Hurling had suffered between forty-five (45) and forty-six (46) stab wounds, including fatal wounds to his neck, torso[,] and hand. Id. [at] 15-64. The description of the wounds evidenced a violent and brutal struggle between Hurling and his assailant. Id. The day following the discovery of Hurling's body, Johnstown Police Detective Mark Britton ("Detective Britton") testified that [Appellant] confessed that he was responsible for Hurling's death and that he did so because Hurling reached for a gun. N.T.[ ], 4/20/21, [at] 88-90. [Appellant] indicated to Detective Britton that he was not in the Johnstown area but would come to the Public Safety Building ("PSB") in the city to speak with police. Id. [at] 89[ ]. [Appellant] never came to the PSB at the appointed time and Detective Britton received a call that [Appellant] was back in the Johnstown area. Id. [at] 90-91. Detective Britton apprehended [Appellant] in the Woodvale section of Johnstown later that evening. Id. [at] 94[ ]. [Appellant] had painted his white vehicle with teal spray paint in an effort to avoid detection. Id. [at] 95.

Detective Britton later learned that evidence may have been removed from 827 Steel Street after Hurling's murder but prior to the police arriving. Id. [at] 116-[ ]17. Cell phones that were removed from the scene by Jasmine Primus were later recovered, however, no firearm was ever recovered. Id. [at] 118.

[Appellant] took the stand as part of the defense's case. N.T.[ ], 4/22/21, [at] 4-63. [Appellant] testified that he went to Hurling's house to find him in a "crazy rage" over money [Appellant] owed to Hurling. Id. [at] 33. He indicated that Hurling "reached" and [Appellant] proceeded to "jump in the air." Id. [at] 34. [Appellant] stabbed Hurling and Hurling then dropped the gun. Id. Hurling then tackled [Appellant] and then Hurling drove his own head through a fish tank. Id. [Appellant] described his actions as "poking" Hurling with a knife at this point. Id. [at] 34-35.

During the Commonwealth's cross-examination, [Appellant] denied stabbing Hurling forty-five (45) times and tried to attribute some of the victim's injuries to the glass from the fish tank. Id. [at] 48, 60. He was also confronted with text messages from the victim[,] wherein it was clear the victim had no "beef" with [Appellant,] and told him to keep his money. Id. [at] 53. Additionally, the Commonwealth was able to establish, despite his denials from the stand, that [Appellant] referred to a portion of ... his personality as "the beast[."] Id. [at] 58-59. [Appellant] also acknowledged that he could get upset when people brought his girl into things, or even mentioned her name. Id. [at] 56-58. Hurling brought up [Appellant]’s then girlfriend, Nicolette, on the evening that [Appellant] killed Hurling. Id. [at] 57.

Commonwealth's Brief at 3-5.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with first-degree murder and related offenses. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress a recorded telephone conversation, claiming that it had been obtained in violation of the Wiretap Act.¹ He also filed a motion in limine seeking to admit music videos in which the victim performed rap songs with violent lyrical and visual content. Both motions were denied by the trial court in an opinion and order dated September 29, 2020.² Following a three-day trial in April of 2021, a jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence.³ On June 1, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, and to a concurrent term of 2-24 months’ incarceration for tampering with evidence. The remaining aggravated assault counts merged for sentencing purposes with Appellant's first-degree murder conviction.

Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion. He filed a timely notice of appeal on June 24, 2021, and a timely, court-ordered statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).⁴ The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 18, 2021. Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), 8/18/21, at 1-13. Therein, the court relied, in part, on its prior opinions dismissing Appellant's pretrial motions. Id. at 12-13 (addressing Appellant's motion in limine ); id. At 13 (addressing Appellant's suppression motion).

Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:

I. Whether the trial court erred in denying ... Appellant's right to present as evidence certain songs the decedent had authored and music videos which he created and starred in on the video streaming service YouTube?

II. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce a certain text message that Appellant sent to an attorney shortly after the incident which led to the charges being filed?

III. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to utilize previous[,] perjur[i]ous statements [by] Appellant in cross examination of Appellant in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence?

Appellant's Brief at 4.

All of Appellant's claims concern the admissibility of evidence.

[T]he admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's evidentiary rulings will be reversed on appeal only upon abuse of that discretion. An abuse of discretion will not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. Moreover, an erroneous ruling by a trial court on an evidentiary issue does not necessitate relief where the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Travaglia , 611 Pa. 481, 28 A.3d 868, 873–74 (2011) (cleaned up).

I.

Appellant first claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine seeking to present evidence of the victim's rap music videos to the jury. In these videos, Hurling, "can be heard rapping about his capacity, willingness[,] and desire to commit acts of violence and his access to and ownership of firearms." Appellant's Brief at 11. Moreover, in "three of the four videos," the victim "brandishes firearms and points them repeatedly at the camera." Id. Appellant contends that these videos were admissible to "offer specific instances" of the victim's conduct, in order "to show his turbulent and dangerous character[.]" Id. at 14. He further argues the evidence was relevant because the videos "tend to make [Appellant's] claim of self-defense more probable than it would be without the evidence." Id. The trial court rejected this claim, reasoning that the videos were not "properly authenticated[,] ... [were] likely to be taken out of context by the jury, and [were] portrayed as acts of violence, which they might not necessarily be." PTO at 8.

Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Pa.R.E. 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Id. , [Pa.R.E.] 401. Even if relevant, however, evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is outweighed by ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Id. , [Pa.R.E.] 403.

Commonwealth v. Christine , 633 Pa. 389, 125 A.3d 394, 398 (2015).

In the context of a self-defense claim, evidence of the victim's propensity for violence may be relevant "(1) to corroborate [the defendant's] alleged knowledge of the victim's quarrelsome and violent character to show that the defendant reasonably believed that his life was in danger; [and/]or (2) to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show that the victim was in fact the aggressor." Commonwealth v. Amos , 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748, 751 (1971) (holding, more specifically, that the victim's prior criminal record of convictions would be...