Case Title: Com. v. Sheaff

Citation: 365 Pa. Super. 613, 530 A.2d 480

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1987-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
365 Pa. Superior Ct. 613 (1987) 530 A.2d 480 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert SHEAFF, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted November 20, 1986. Filed August 28, 1987. *616 Louis Lipschitz, Philadelphia, for appellant. Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee. Before CAVANAUGH, OLSZEWSKI and TAMILIA, JJ. TAMILIA, Judge: Appellant was found guilty by a jury of burglary and was sentenced to seven and one-half to fifteen years incarceration. *617 This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered after denial of appellant's post-trial motions. We find no need to address appellant's sufficiency of the evidence argument because appellant failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review in his post-trial motions. In his post-trial motion, filed December 9, 1983, appellant framed the sufficiency of the evidence issue in "boilerplate" fashion, and thus did not preserve the issue for appellate review as required by Commonwealth v. Holmes, 315 Pa.Super. 256, 259-60, 461 A.2d 1268, 1270 (1983). See Commonwealth v. Martin, 346 Pa.Super. 129, 499 A.2d 344 (1985); Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123. While appellant did file a supplemental post-trial motion on February 8, 1984, where he reasserted his sufficiency of the evidence argument with the requisite specificity, the record does not show that appellant ever sought the necessary permission of the trial court to file this supplemental post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. Whether a defendant can file additional reasons for a new trial is a matter of discretion with the trial court. Commonwealth v. Talley, 456 Pa. 574, 318 A.2d 922 (1974). This Court, in its recent Opinion in Commonwealth v. Kelly, 365 Pa.Super. 28, 528 A.2d 1346 (1987), quoted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Talley as follows: We then went on to say: To summarize and clarify our position in this case and the cases cited herein, we hold that permission must be requested and granted on the record before supplemental post-trial motions may be filed. Counsel may not simply reserve the right to file such motions by adding a notation to that effect in the original post-trial motions. In order to preserve the right to file supplemental motions after the transcript is received, a request must be approved in advance in a timely fashion. If permission is granted, and supplemental motions are filed, an allegation that could have been raised without the need for a transcript is still considered to be waived. See Talley, supra. This procedure is required by the mandate of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a). Since we find appellant's sufficiency argument waived, we will not review issues which have not been properly preserved for review. However, since appellant's remaining arguments were properly raised in his post-trial motions, we will address them. Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting portions of a police report which contained the statement of a police officer the partner of a testifying officer who was not available to testify at the time of trial. We find no merit in this argument due to the fact that appellant's counsel himself referred to the non-testifying officer's report and even had a portion of that report admitted into evidence through testimony (N.T. 12/2/83, pp. 57-60). Appellant cannot now argue that it was error for the trial court to allow the Commonwealth to admit into evidence the full text of the non-testifying officer's report as hearsay (N.T. 12/2/83, pp. 77-79), when appellant's counsel "opened the door" for such testimony by first referring to the *620 report. As we stated in Commonwealth v. McCabe, 345 Pa.Super. 495, 498 A.2d 933 (1985): "If a defendant delves into what would be objectionable testimony on the part of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth can probe further into the objectionable area." (Citations omitted.) Thus we find no error in admitting the report due to appellant's effective waiver of objection by first referring to the report.[1] Appellant claims that the trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a juror, Mr. Driscoll, who was employed as a crime investigator by a local community organization partially funded by the city and state governments. In Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Pa. 164, 168, 383 A.2d 874, 876 (1978), our Supreme Court held "that one's status as a law enforcement officer in and of itself is insufficient to require disqualification as a juror in a criminal case." In quoting our earlier Opinion in Commonwealth v. Colon, 223 Pa.Super. 202, 206-7, 299 A.2d 326, 328 (1972), the Supreme Court stated: Id., 477 Pa. at 168, 383 A.2d at 876. Further, the Jones, supra, Opinion went on to adopt the following two-tier analysis we established in Colon, supra, to determine whether a police officer or law enforcement official could serve as a juror in a criminal case: Id., 477 Pa. at 169, 383 A.2d at 876-7. "The [traditional] test for determining whether a prospective juror should be disqualified is whether he or she is willing and able to eliminate the influence of any scruples and render a verdict according to the evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to questions and demeanor." Commonwealth v. Colson, 507 Pa. 440, 490 A.2d 811 (1985), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 2245, 90 L. Ed. 2d 692 (1986). Juror Driscoll did not have a "real relationship" to this case and thus would not fall under the first tier of the Colon, supra, test (N.T. 12/2/83, pp. 9-10). During a side bar voir dire, Mr. Driscoll stated that his appraisal of the evidence in a case where the defendant is charged with burglary would be unaffected by his ten or twelve years of experience investigating burglaries and other crimes. Further, the juror responded that his prior experience would not affect his decision with respect to the defendant/appellant (N.T. 12/2/83, pp. 4-7). Therefore, based on the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the trial judge's part in qualifying Juror Driscoll. Colson, supra. Lastly, appellant argues that because the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, asked objectionable questions, made inappropriate comments and advanced improper arguments to the jury throughout the course of the entire trial and in closing argument to the jury, he was deprived of a fair trial. In support of this argument appellant lists some nineteen examples of what he claims to be prosecutorial "misconduct." Not every intemperate, irrelevant, unwise or improper remark by a prosecuting attorney is grounds for a *622 mistrial. Commonwealth v. Harvey, 345 Pa.Super. 237, 498 A.2d 378 (1985). When the appropriateness of a prosecutor's statements are in question, a new trial will not be granted unless it is inevitable that the prosecutor's remark prejudices the defendant to such a degree that it prevents the jury from weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict. Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 505 Pa. 152, 477 A.2d 1309 (1984); Commonwealth v. Upsher, 497 Pa. 621, 444 A.2d 90 (1982); Commonwealth v. Frazier, 331 Pa.Super. 128, 480 A.2d 276, (1984). Upon a thorough review of the record and specifically those areas cited by appellant's counsel, we find that we are in full agreement with the trial judge's assertion that while the prosecutor may have acted in a rude manner at times, his overall conduct did not unduly prejudice the jury so that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict. In passing we note, without making a ruling, that the transcripts indicated that trial counsels' demeanor boardered on mutual animosity. The most critical matter, dealing with alleged prosecutorial misconduct, that appellant raises concerned Mr. Lipschitz's, the defense counsel, cross-examination of one of the police detectives concerning his decision not to fingerprint the automobile and evidence therein, which appellant was said to have used in perpetrating the burglary of a small store. Also in question are certain comments made by the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Carpenter, on this matter during his closing argument to the jury. No attempts to obtain fingerprints were made by police in this case. Police found in the automobile defendant/appellant's driver's license, marked as Exhibit "C-2", and a rental agreement for the automobile, marked as Exhibit "C-3", which agreement listed the appellant as an additional driver for the automobile. After having cross-examined the police detective as to why he had not attempted to obtain fingerprints from the stolen merchandise in the automobile, defense counsel continued: (N.T. 12/3/86, p. 134.) Appellant now maintains this comment by the prosecutor improperly suggested to the jury that the prints, if investigated, would have belonged to the appellant. Further, on redirect examination of the police detective concerning his decision not to obtain fingerprints from the scene, the prosecutor began: (N.T. 12/3/86, p. 136-7.) Appellant now claims this was improper questioning on the part of the prosecution and that it also acted to prejudice the jury. The prosecution then proceeded to question the detective on general procedures for fingerprinting and the fact that the red powder used could damage the merchandise of the victim's store. Additionally, the witness testified to the limited number of fingerprint technicians in the police department and the large number of felonies committed in the city of Philadelphia each year. Additionally, after having the detective explain smear prints and overlayed prints, the detective testified as to the large number of store employees and police officers that were present at the scene of the crime and who had handled the stolen merchandise in their efforts to place it back in the store. The officers present had touched the car and the glove compartment, as well as the driver's license and rental agreement. Earlier testimony disclosed the trunk had the tools used in the break-in and leather gloves. Lastly, the detective testified the appellant had been returned to the scene. Over objection of defense counsel, the prosecutor continued: (N.T. 12/2/83, pp. 145-6.) Appellant claims the prosecutor's improper question over a sustained objection was prejudicial. Upon a review of the transcript of the trial, we are convinced the above remarks made by the prosecutor during direct examination and on redirect examination did not have an adverse effect on the appellant either individually or cumulatively. While some of the remarks were unnecessary, they were not prejudicial in manner. Unlike Commonwealth v. Hickman, 319 Pa.Super. 261, 466 A.2d 148 (1983), the preeminent purpose of the trial the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused was not subordinated by these remarks. We believe the jury was not hampered by these remarks from weighing the evidence and rendering a verdict. Finally, appellant argues that the prosecutor made certain improper comments concerning the police investigation and fingerprint matter during his closing argument to the jury. We find it more helpful in maintaining the proper context of these remarks to first refer to the following remarks made by defense counsel during his closing argument. (N.T. 12/5/83, p. 223). Further, "I submit to you that it should, because if they had done it, if they found any deposits or shreds of wood or deposits from the wood on the floor on any garment worn by Mr. Sheaff, the odds are we *626 wouldn't be here." (N.T. 12/5/83, p. 226-7.) Additionally, defense counsel stated: "I submit, had this investigation been complete, had all of the items been presented to the jury which would have resulted from a complete investigation, the odds are Mr. Sheaff would not be here to stand trial." (N.T. 12/5/83, p. 234.) In response to these comments by appellant's trial counsel, the prosecutor stated in his closing argument: (N.T. 12/5/83, p. 251-2.) We find the prosecutor justified in addressing appellant's trial counsel's closing comments concerning the adequacy of the police investigation and the lack of fingerprints. Appellant's counsel argued to the jury that had fingerprints been taken at the scene, appellant would have been "absolved" and more importantly that a trial would not have been necessary. This was a purely hypothetical argument on appellant's part. Appellant cannot now contend, after having presented this scenario, that it was improper for the *627 prosecutor to address this matter in his closing argument. By stating that defendant/appellant would have pled guilty, the prosecutor was simply presenting a different conclusion to be drawn by the jury from the appellant's hypothetical fingerprint search, in direct opposition to the one drawn by appellant's counsel. We find that neither inference was of a prejudicial nature which would affect the jury's weighing of the evidence and rendering of a verdict and do not warrant a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm. Judgment of sentence affirmed. [1] The trial judge did give a cautionary instruction to the jury which served to restrict their consideration of the statement to only those issues which had been testified to directly by the officer (N.T. 12/2/83, p. 79).