Commonwealth v. Vansyckel

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. SAYJOUNA VANSYCKEL

No. 1316 EDA 2023

No. J-A10022-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 6, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered April 26, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s) MC-51-CR-0005705-2021

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM

PANELLA, P.J.E.

The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered on April 26, 2023, by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying its motion to refile the charges of third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, possessing instruments of crime ("PIC"), tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function against Sayjouna Vansyckel ("Vansyckel").^[1] Because we find the Commonwealth presented a prima facie case of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Vansyckel was charged with the above-mentioned crimes, stemming from an incident on March 24, 2021. A preliminary hearing was held at which the Commonwealth presented three witnesses, all police officers. Officer David Jones testified that he responded to 1217 Elbridge Street in Philadelphia at approximately 5:45 p.m. on March 24, 2021. When he arrived in the area of 1217 Elbridge Street, he was flagged down and told that "whatever is going on is going on up the street." N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 3/1/22, at 20. He walked over to that area and a woman said she needed help, and a woman was stabbed. He confirmed the address and called over the radio for rescue to expedite as there were two stabbing victims.

When he first saw the decedent, Taylor Dawson ("Dawson"), she was unconscious on the floor inside 1217 Elbridge Street. Her shirt was pulled up and he observed one stab wound below her left breast. He checked for a pulse but did not find one. When rescue arrived, he carried her to the ambulance to be transported to the hospital. The victim was pronounced dead at 6:09 p.m.

While speaking with Vansyckel, whom he identified as the woman asking for help when he arrived, he noticed she had blood on her face around her nose and lip. Officer Jones was able to identify the second stabbing victim as Vansyckel's mother.^[2] The Commonwealth next presented Detective John Palmiero. Detective Palmiero interviewed Vansyckel at the Homicide Unit in a room that was both audio and visually recorded. After a lengthy interview, Detective Palmiero typed up a summary of Vansyckel's statement. He presented it to Vansyckel who reviewed it, made handwritten additions,^[3] and signed it. Portions of this statement were then read into the record, but pursuant to defense counsel's objections, the statement was ultimately excluded.

Detective Palmiero ended his testimony by noting police searched 1217 Elbridge Street and recovered a knife from the bathroom.

The last witness the Commonwealth presented was Detective Danielle Slobodian. Detective Slobodian explained that during the time Vansyckel was at Homicide headquarters, she escorted Vansyckel to the bathroom. During the walk there, Vansyckel said "I took a life. She is never coming back." N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 3/1/22, at 57. The Commonwealth then rested. Defense did not present any witnesses. After argument, the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Commonwealth filed a motion to refile the charges and a hearing was held on April 26, 2023. The Commonwealth did not present any additional witnesses. The Commonwealth did, however, enter into evidence the preliminary hearing transcript, the summary of Vansyckel's statement, the recording of Vansyckel's interview, a partial transcript of Vansyckel's interview, and the medical examiner's report.

The two videos comprising Vansyckel's recorded interview span over 18 hours. Over half of the time Vansyckel was alone in the room. The interview began at approximately 8:04 p.m. The transcribed portion of the interview begins at 11:42 p.m. and lasts until 12:11 a.m., when detectives left the interview room. The detectives returned at 1:27 a.m. to read Vansyckel the typed summary of her statement. After the detectives left at 1:45 a.m., Vansyckel was not questioned any further about her involvement in the death of Dawson.

During her interview, Vansyckel provided differing stories of what occurred at her home on March 24, 2021. There are a number of matters she remained consistent on, however, including: she consistently stated Dawson was not permitted in her home, because Vansyckel's mother, with whom Vansyckel lives, believed that Dawson disrespected her home; Vansyckel consistently stated she did not stab her mother and it was not possible she stabbed her mother; and Vansyckel consistently told the detectives she did not mean to hurt anyone, and she did not know she stabbed Dawson until after Dawson fell to the ground and did not get back up. See Recorded Interview, 3/24/21-3/25/21, at 20:11:54-20:12:00, 20:12:12-20:12:54, 22:58:00-22:58:04, 23:15:29-23:15:50, 23:18:44-23:19:18, 23:29:35-23:29:55, 23:30:00-23:30:07, 23:42:33-23:42:50, 23:43:02-23:43:16, 23:48:40-23:48:46, 23:49:09-23:49:54, 23:53:26-23:53:55, 23:55:43-23:56:13, 23:57:02-23:57:59, 23:59:04-23:59:12, 00:03:27-00:04:11, 00:05:49-00:06:01, 00:06:43-00:08:50.

Vansyckel ultimately told detectives what they believed was the truth. Vansyckel explained Dawson was her girlfriend for over a year. That day, Dawson came over due to their recent breakup and started arguing with Vansyckel. Vansyckel was inside the front door and Dawson was just outside the front door. Vansyckel went to close the door, but Dawson pushed it open. Vansyckel tried to call police, but Dawson took her phone and threw it across the street. Dawson left but returned minutes later. Dawson was at the front door trying to get inside as Vansyckel's mother tried to stop Dawson from entering the home. Vansyckel described it as Dawson "broke into" the house. See Summary of Interview, 3/25/21 (single page); Recorded Interview, 3/25/21, at 01:32:22-01:45:15. Dawson was screaming. Vansyckel grabbed a knife from the kitchen and started swinging it around in an attempt to scare Dawson. Dawson fell to the ground but got back up, so Vansyckel believed everything was okay. However, Dawson fell again and did not get back up. Vansyckel's mother told her that she (Vansyckel) had stabbed Dawson. Vansyckel was shaken during the entire interview and consistently said she never meant to hurt anyone.

After both the Commonwealth and defense argued their respective sides, the trial court denied the motion to refile the charges. The Commonwealth timely appealed and complied with the trial court's order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

The Commonwealth raises one issue for our review:

Did the lower court err in denying the motion to refile charges against [Vansyckel] where the evidence, properly viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, established a prima facie case that [Vansyckel] committed each of the charged crimes?

Appellant's Brief, at 4.

Our review of an order denying the Commonwealth's motion to refile charges is governed by the following:

It is well-settled that the evidentiary sufficiency of the Commonwealth's prima facie case is a question of law to which this Court's review is plenary. The trial court is afforded no discretion in deciding whether, as a matter of law and in light of the facts presented to it, the Commonwealth has carried its burden to make out the elements of a charged crime.

As our Supreme Court explained:

at the preliminary hearing stage of a criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth need not prove the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather, must merely put forth sufficient evidence of each of the material elements of the crime charged and establishes probable cause to warrant the belief that the accused committed the offense. Furthermore, the evidence need only be such that, if presented at trial and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted in permitting the case to be decided by the jury.

Weight and credibility of evidence are not factors at the preliminary hearing stage. All evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom which would support a verdict of guilty are to be given effect. Courts must employ a "more-likely-than-not" test to access the reasonableness of inferences relied upon. Anything less amounts only to suspicion or conjecture.

Commonwealth v. Munson, 261 A.3d 530, 540 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations and brackets omitted).

The "more-likely-than-not" test is a "minimum standard in assessing the reasonableness of inferences relied upon in establishing a prima facie case of criminal culpability." Commonwealth v. Wojdak, 466 A.2d 991, 996 (Pa. 1983). Our Supreme Court explained "[e]videntiary inferences, like criminal presumptions, are constitutionally infirm unless the inferred fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. Where the inference allowed is tenuously connected to the facts proved by the Commonwealth, due process is lacking." Id. (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).

Initially, the Commonwealth asserts the trial court erred in finding the elements of third-degree murder, specifically malice, were not established. See Appellant's Brief, at 12. The Commonwealth believes it established malice because "[a] fatal stab wound to the heart gives rise to an inference of malice." Id. at 13.

Murder of the third...