Commonwealth v. Williams

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD LEONARD WILLIAMS Appellant

No. 637 WDA 2022

No. J-S01023-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 12, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001064-2021.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

KUNSELMAN, J.

Richard Leonard Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a jury convicted him of aggravated assault simple assault, five counts of recklessly endangering another person, four counts of terroristic threats, and three counts of unlawful restraint.^[1] We are constrained to vacate in part and remand for a new trial.

The trial court recounted the facts adduced at trial:

On February 15, 2021, Officer Thomas O'Barto of the Masontown Police Department was dispatched to Fort Mason Village for a reported fight and potential stabbing at approximately 10:30 pm. When Officer O'Barto arrived on scene, he observed a male bleeding in front of apartment 33 who he identified as Mark Smith. Mr. Smith was bleeding from the right arm and had several other injuries. Officer O'Barto then moved to the inside of the apartment to clear the residence and to check for other victims. Officer O'Barto found Crystal Jackson and her [three c]hildren in the upstairs room, everyone was crying and visibly distraught. The officer then moved the family to outside the apartment so he could continue to clear the scene.

The officer cleared the scene with no sight of Williams. The victim, Crystal Jackson, told the officer that the perpetrator was Williams. While the officer was speaking to [Jackson], she showed him messages she received from Williams. Then Williams called [Jackson's] phone. Officer O'Barto answered the phone, identified himself and told Williams to turn himself in. Williams was adamant that he would not turn himself in.

From the scene Officer O'Barto collected two knives, one in the living room at the bottom of the staircase, and the other in the bedroom where the family was located when he arrived on scene. The knives were properly collected for evidence. Later that night[, Williams] sent [Jackson] messages saying, "I'm getting a gun and I'm coming after [all] y'all." Williams was eventually located and arrested for his preliminary hearing.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/22, at 4-5.

Jackson testified that Williams came to her apartment and, with their three children in Jackson's bedroom, cut his arm and told Jackson she could stop the cutting by not talking to Smith. Smith testified that he came to tell Williams to leave; as Williams ran down the stairs, Smith grabbed Williams' legs and took him to the floor. Williams then cut Smith with a knife and fled. The jury also heard that the previous night, Smith and Williams fought outside Jackson's apartment.

Williams represented himself at trial and testified in his own defense. He argued that he acted in self-defense against Smith. As described below, Williams sought to introduce his knowledge of Smith's criminal charges from 2018. Based on Williams' limited documentary evidence of Smith's record, the trial court took the matter under advisement. Following its review of Smith's case, the court told the jury that Smith had a conviction for criminal trespass, which the jury could use only in assessing Smith's credibility.

The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense. It gave instructions on the elements of the charged crimes that substantially tracked the standard jury instructions. Williams did not object to the trial court's final instructions.

The jury found Williams not guilty of attempted murder and guilty of the remaining offenses. On May 3, 2022, the court sentenced Williams to an aggregate term of 9 to 30 years of imprisonment, consecutive to his sentence in a related case. Williams timely appealed. Williams and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.^[2]

Williams presents seven questions for our review:

1. Whether the Commonwealth's evidence in this case is insufficient by failing to prove [Williams] was not acting in self defense in regards to aggravated assault (Count 2) beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. Whether self defense was justified and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

3. Whether the Commonwealth furnished evidence to justify the assault upon [Williams]?

4. Whether the trial court erred by not permitting inquiry into victims crimen falsi conviction?

5. Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for terroristic threats regarding [Williams'] children, Counts 9, 10, 12?

6. Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions of unlawful restraint, Counts 13, 14 and 15?

7. Whether the trial court erred in its instructions by withholding explanation between malice and self defense?

Williams' Brief at 7. The Commonwealth did not file a brief.

1. Sufficiency of the evidence - self-defense

Williams' first issue concerns the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence to prove that he was not acting in self-defense for the charge of aggravated assault against Smith.^[3] He emphasizes Smith's testimony that Williams had not yet reached Smith when Smith grabbed his feet. Because of this evidence that Smith initiated physical contact, Williams argues that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden to disprove self-defense.

As with any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we employ the following well-settled standard of review:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the [jury] to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying this test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the [jury's]. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the [jury] unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime [and disproving self-defense] beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the [jury] while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Boyer, 282 A.3d 1161, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2022) (brackets omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 618-19 (Pa. Super. 2012)).

Once there is some evidence to justify a finding of self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 740-43 (Pa. 2012) (cataloguing the history of this burden). Pennsylvania's self-defense law is found in Section 505 of the Crimes Code, "Use of force in self-protection":

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--

The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

* * *

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(a), (b)(2) (emphasis added). Under this law, when a defendant uses deadly force, the three elements of a self-defense claim are:

(1) 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; (2) the defendant was free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in his use of deadly force; and (3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat.

Commonwealth v. Steele, 234 A.3d 840, 846 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Mouzon, 53 A.3d at 740). The Commonwealth may meet its burden by disproving any of these three elements. Here, the trial court properly instructed the jury on self-defense. N.T., Trial, 4/27/22, at 340-344.

As a threshold matter, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Williams committed aggravated assault. His use of a knife (of any length) was deadly force. Commonwealth v. Cutts 421 A.2d 1172, 1174 (Pa. Super. 1980) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 332 A.2d 464, 466-67 (Pa. Super. 1974)). Also, Williams knew that a knife was readily capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, having cut himself and threatened to kill himself moments earlier. The evidence was thus sufficient to prove that when Williams used a knife to...