Commonwealth v. Speller

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RAYMOND L. SPELLER Appellant

No. 208 MDA 2022

No. J-S44030-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

April 4, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 29, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0005479-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

McLAUGHLIN, J.

Raymond L. Speller appeals from the judgment of sentence following his convictions for murder in the first degree, possession of a firearm prohibited, and firearms not to be carried without a license.^[1] We affirm.

The trial court summarized the undisputed facts as follows:

In the mid-morning on September 23, 2019, surveillance cameras affixed to buildings in and around the Hillside Apartments in Lancaster, PA captured [Speller] shooting to death [the victim,] Pedro Almodovar.1 The cameras also captured the events leading up to and following the shooting. The footage shows a red SUV pull into a small parking area next to the Hillside Apartments. There are two occupants in the vehicle; Mr. Almodovar is sitting in the front passenger seat. After pulling into the lot, neither Mr. Almodovar nor the driver exit the vehicle. The footage then shows a man walk past the SUV and stop briefly by the vehicle before proceeding around the corner and entering 369 Howard Avenue located a short distance from the parking area. A few moments later, another man - [Speller] - can be seen walking out of 369 Howard Avenue, up the sidewalk in front of the house, and around the corner to the area where the red SUV was parked. The footage then shows [Speller] walk directly up to the passenger's side of the vehicle and shoot Mr. Almodovar while he is still sitting in the vehicle. The footage depicts [Speller] trying, unsuccessfully, to fire more shots at Mr Almodovar before the magazine eventually falls out of the gun. [Speller] can then be seen picking something up from the ground, turning around, walking back toward 369 Howard Avenue, and, eventually, walking away in the opposite direction of where he shot Mr. Almodovar.

¹ The footage was entered into evidence as "Commonwealth Exhibit 7" during the jury trial in the above-captioned matter.

Police were soon thereafter notified of the shooting and arrived on scene around 11:06 a.m. Responding officers found Mr. Almodovar still in the passenger side front seat with blood coming from his nose and mouth; Mr. Almodovar was unresponsive and attempts to render aid were unsuccessful.

Trial Court Opinion, filed Apr. 13, 2022, at 1-2 (citations omitted).

Speller testified at trial that on the morning in question, he was making breakfast at his girlfriend's house and smoking PCP. N.T. Trial, 5/25/21-5/28/21, at 329-31. He stated that his close friend "Red" came over. Id. at 329-30. Speller said that Red told him that Almodovar was outside "getting out of his car to exercise or something like that." Id. at 332-33. Speller clarified that in "street lingo, exercise means you can rob somebody, harm somebody, do something to somebody." Id. at 338. Speller stated that as soon as Red said Almodovar's name, he "truly believed that [Almodovar] was there for me" and he was scared for his life because he believed Almodovar "wanted [him] dead." Id. at 333, 338, 340. Speller testified that he walked outside and saw Almodovar, but he did not remember shooting him. Id. at 340-41. He stated that he "blanked out" and his judgment was affected due to using PCP. Id. at 333-34. Speller later admitted during a police interview that he was the shooter. Id. at 351.

A jury found Speller guilty of murder in the first degree, possession of a firearm prohibited, and firearms not to be carried without a license. He was sentenced on October 29, 2021, to life in prison without parole plus seven and one-half to 20 years. After sentencing, new counsel was appointed to represent Speller for purposes of appeal. On the tenth day after sentencing, counsel filed a post-sentence motion on November 8, 2021, seeking leave to supplement the motion within 30 days after receipt of the transcripts, which was granted. Counsel subsequently filed a motion indicating that no supplement would be filed. The court denied post-sentence relief on January 14, 2022. This timely appeal followed.

Speller raises the following five issues:

1. Did the trial court err when it denied [Speller's] request for a self-defense jury instruction?

2. Did the trial court err when it denied [Speller's] request for voluntary manslaughter, unreasonable belief jury instruction?

3. Did the trial court err when it did not permit defense counsel to question Det. Nathan Nickel about the decedent victim's violent reputation with law enforcement?

4. Did the trial court err when it limited the questioning of defense witness Ivan Lopez-Diaz to four questions chosen by the trial court, none of which involved substantive communication between decedent victim and Mr. Lopez-Diaz that was relayed to [Speller] about the decedent victim wanting to kill [Speller]?

5. Did the trial court err when it precluded testimony of Ronald Luis about threats made by the decedent victim towards [Speller], as they were relevant to [Speller's] state of mind?

Speller's Br. at 5 (issues renumbered for ease of disposition).

Speller first argues the court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on self-defense. He contends he was fearful of Almodovar due to prior threats Almodovar made against him and believed he was in imminent danger when Almodovar was in the parking lot outside of the apartment. Speller's Br. at 18-19. Speller alleges that when his friend, Red, told him that Almodovar was there to "exercise," he believed that meant that Almodovar would do harm to him. Id. at 18. According to Speller, he did not violate his duty to retreat because "[t]here was no evidence that [he] could have fled the scene without first being confronted by" Almodovar. Id. at 20. Speller concludes that the court wrongfully "usurped the jury [when it] unilaterality decided that self-defense was not a viable defense in this matter." Id.

"[O]ur standard of review when considering the denial of jury instructions is one of deference - an appellate court will reverse a court's decision only when it abused its discretion or committed an error of law." Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 798-99 (Pa. 2009)). "The trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration." Id. (citation omitted). The court "is not required to give every charge that is requested by the parties and its refusal to give a requested charge does not require reversal unless the appellant was prejudiced by that refusal." Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 583 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, a "trial court is not obligated to instruct a jury upon legal principles which have no applicability to the presented facts." Commonwealth v. Bohonyi, 900 A.2d 877, 883 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Rather, "[t]here must be some relationship between the law upon which an instruction is requested and the evidence presented at trial." Id. (citation omitted).

"Before the issue of self-defense may be submitted to a jury for consideration, a valid claim of self-defense must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made by the trial judge." Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239, 1244 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted). A claim of self-defense requires evidence of three elements: "(a) [that the defendant] reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use deadly force against the victim to prevent such harm; (b) that the defendant was free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in the slaying; and (c) that the [defendant] did not violate any duty to retreat." Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 740 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted) (alteration in Mouzon); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(a).

Here, the court determined that no instruction on self-defense was warranted because there was no evidence that Speller had acted in self-defense. The court stated:

The Commonwealth's evidence showed that Mr. Almodovar sat defenseless in a parked car and posed absolutely no threat to [Speller] when [Speller] shot him. Further, the surveillance footage captured by the cameras affixed to the Hill[side] Apartments showed [Speller] violating his duty to retreat or seek safety when he left his residence and walked up the sidewalk and around the corner toward where Mr. Almodovar sat. Indeed, the contrary is true. [Speller] left a place of safety to specifically confront and shoot an unarmed individual. [Speller] was also the sole aggressor; during the entirety of the incident, Mr. Almodovar remained seated in a parked vehicle around the corner from [Speller's] residence. Officers who observed Mr. Almodovar's dead body in the car described his post-mortem position - sprawled toward the back driver's side of the vehicle - as indicating that Mr. Almodovar attempted to retreat or escape when [Speller] confronted him.

***

During his trial testimony, [Speller] also readily admitted that [he] left his residence and walked up the sidewalk and around the corner to the parking area, then directly up to where Mr. Almodovar sat, shot him once, and tried to fire more shots.

Trial Ct. Op. at 11-12.

Our review of the record confirms the court's finding that there was no evidence that would have permitted the jury to...