Commonwealth v. Owens

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL BRADY OWENS Appellant

No. 19 EDA 2022

No. J-S37040-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

April 12, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 18, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0001095-2018

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OLSON, J.

MEMORANDUM

OLSON J.

Appellant Michael Brady Owens, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 18, 2021. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

on March 16, 2016, McMichael's Hunting Club members discovered burnt human remains on State Game Lands 38, later identified as Demetria Hughes [(hereinafter “the Victim”)]. An autopsy on the Victim determined that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. On March 21 2016, Pennsylvania State Troopers conducted an interview with [Appellant's co-defendant,] Randy Criste-Troutman [(hereinafter “Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman”),] at the Lackawanna County Prison. He related the Victim was an associate of his in dealing heroin and owed him in excess of $1,000.00 for illegal drugs. [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman related that he used a ruse to lure the [Victim] into the woods in order to kill him. Specifically, [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman told the Victim they would commit a home invasion robbery and the Victim agreed to participate. [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman further related that [Appellant] helped lure the [Victim] with the robbery ruse. [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman related that Appellant shot and killed the Victim in the woods.

On April 26, 2016, Appellant gave sworn testimony to the Monroe County Investigating Grand Jury. During his testimony, Appellant admitted to knowing the Victim, and knew the Victim and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman to be associates. Moreover, Appellant knew [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman was involved in the sale of illegal drugs, specifically heroin. Appellant related that [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman contacted him and asked to help drop off a friend. Appellant stated that he picked up [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and was advised that the Victim was that friend. Appellant related that he drove [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and the Victim to a wooded area, that [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and the Victim exited the vehicle, and that after a period of time [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman returned alone. Appellant advised that he returned to the same spot with [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman between one and three days later. Appellant further advised [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman brought a gas can filled with gasoline on the return trip.

Finally, cell phone tracking evidence supports finding that: (1) Appellant accompanied [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman and the Victim to the scene of the murder on the date the murder occurred; (2) Appellant and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman returned to the scene of the crime that night; and (3) Appellant and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman returned to the scene of the crime three days later. Moreover, Appellant and [Co-Defendant] Criste-Troutman were in frequent contact via text message communications during this time period.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/22, at 36-37 (citations omitted).

A jury found Appellant guilty of a number of crimes, including first-degree murder, criminal conspiracy, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and abuse of a corpse.^[1] On November 18, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of life in prison without the possibility of parole, with a consecutive term of 256 to 552 months in prison, for his convictions.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He numbers four claims on appeal:

1. Whether, pre-trial, the court erred when it ruled [Appellant] was precluded from receiving the mental health report evaluating [Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman,] and containing exculpatory statements for Appellant?

2. Whether, pre-trial, the court erred when it failed to grant [Appellant's] motion to dismiss pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 600?

3. Whether, at trial, the court erred where it precluded [Appellant] from cross-examining [Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman] on statements he had made during his mental health evaluation?

4. Whether, at trial, the court erred when it overruled objections to [Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence] 404(b) [] that [Appellant] had previously "beat a body," which statements were offered through Detectives Thomas McAndrew and Wendy Serfass, and where this evidence's probative value did not substantially outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice, where it was not relevant for any permissible purpose, and where the Commonwealth had provided no notice and failed to meet a court-imposed deadline for notice of 404(b) evidence prior to trial?

Appellant's Brief at 6-7.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Margherita Patti-Worthington. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in President Judge Patti-Worthington's August 16, 2021 and February 7, 2022 opinions. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of President Judge Patti-Worthington's thorough opinions and adopt them as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of President Judge Patti-Worthington's August 16, 2021 and February 7, 2022 opinions.

Although we adopt the trial court's opinions as our own, we specifically address Appellant's first and third claims on appeal which challenge the trial court's rulings precluding Appellant from receiving the mental health evaluation reports of Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman, and further precluding Appellant from cross-examining Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman on statements he made during the mental health evaluations. In its opinion, the trial court thoroughly and ably explained why Appellant's claims fail. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/22, at 3-20. We further note that our opinions in Commonwealth v. Nuzzo, 284 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Super. 2022) and Commonwealth v. Segarra, 228 A.3d 943 (Pa. Super. 2020) foreclose Appellant's ability to obtain relief on these claims.

In the case at bar, the trial court ordered Co-Defendant Criste-Troutman to undergo incompetency evaluations, pursuant to 50 P.S. § 7402 of the Mental Health Procedures Act ("MHPA"). Section 7402 of the MHPA declares:

§ 7402. Incompetence to proceed on criminal charges and lack of criminal responsibility as defense (a) Definition of Incompetency.--Whenever a person who has been charged with a crime is found to be substantially unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings against him or to participate and assist in his defense, he shall be deemed incompetent to be tried, convicted or sentenced so long as such incapacity continues.

. . .

(c) Application for Incompetency Examination.--Application to the court for an order directing an incompetency examination may be presented by an attorney for the Commonwealth, a person charged with a crime, his counsel, or the warden or other official in charge of the institution or place in which he is detained. A person charged with crime shall be represented either by counsel of his selection or by court-appointed counsel.

(d) Hearing; When Required.--The court, either on application or on its own motion, may order an incompetency examination at any stage in the proceedings and may do so without a hearing unless the examination is objected to by the person charged with a crime or by his counsel. In such event, an examination shall be ordered only after determination upon a hearing that there is a prima facie question of incompetency. Upon completion of the examination, a determination of incompetency shall be made by the court where incompetency is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

(e) Conduct of Examination; Report.--When ordered by the court, an incompetency examination shall take place under the following conditions:

(1) It shall be conducted as an outpatient examination unless an inpatient examination is, or has been, authorized under another provision of this act.

(2) It shall be conducted by at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist and may relate both to competency to proceed and to criminal responsibility for the crime charged.

(3) The person shall be entitled to have counsel present with him and shall not be required to answer any questions or to perform tests unless he has moved for or agreed to the examination. Nothing said or done by such person during the examination may be used as evidence against him in any criminal proceedings on any issue other than that of his mental condition.

(4) A report shall be submitted to the court and to counsel and shall contain a description of the examination, which shall include:

(i) diagnosis of the person's mental condition;

(ii) an opinion as to his capacity to understand the nature and object of the criminal proceedings against him and to assist in his defense;

(iii) when so requested, an opinion as to his mental condition in relation to the standards for criminal responsibility as then provided by law if it appears that the facts concerning his mental condition may also be relevant to the question of legal responsibility; and

(iv) when so requested, an opinion as to whether he had the capacity to have a particular state of mind, where such state of mind is a required element of the criminal charge.

. . .

50 P.S. § 7402.

In Nuzzo, this Court held that a competency petition and its attached...