J-A05012-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

SHATAYLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1876 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 13, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014890-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2019

Appellant, Shatayla Alexandria Engram, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following

her bench trial convictions for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, and

recklessly endangering another person.1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and

procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT

DENIED THE REQUEST TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL BASED

UPON THE ISSUE THAT THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED?

(Appellant’s Brief at 8). ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1); 2706(a)(1); 2705, respectively.
J-A05012-19

- 2 -

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Edward J.

Borkowski, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed July 30, 2018, at 6-10) (finding:

Victim’s trial testimony was credible; Appellant’s trial testimony was

inconsistent with common sense and physical dynamics of altercation, as well

as how and where it occurred in house; Victim did not threaten Appellant or

possess weapon; Appellant gave multiple inconsistent accounts of events and

sustained no injuries, despite her representations to law enforcement;

Commonwealth satisfied its burden to disprove self-defense beyond

reasonable doubt; verdict was not against weight of evidence). Accordingly,

we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/12/2019
Circulated 01/30/2019 10:28 AM

,•!I 

,I 

... 

. ' '.": 

IN THE COURT OF C01\t1MON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

CO!vlMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

APPELLEE, 

v. 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

SHAT A YLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM, CC NO.: 201614890 

APPELLANT. 

1876 WDA 2017 

OPINION 

FILED BY: 

•_,,; 

. �-·. .. .. _-_ - , 

--· __ , 

.:... 

THE HONORABLE 

EDWARD J. BORKOWSKI 

COPIES TO: 

Victoria H. Vidt 

Office of the Public Defender 

400 County Office Building 

542 Forbes Avenue 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 

Michael Streily, Esq. 

Office of the District Attorney 

401 Allegheny County Courthouse 

436 Grant Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

CO.f\.1MONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

APPELL EE 

v. 

SHA TA YLA ALEXANDRIA ENGRAM, 

APPELLANT. 

OPINION 

BORKOWSKI, J. 

CRIMINAL DIVISION 

CC NO.: 201614890 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Appellant was charged by criminal information ( CC 201614890) with one 

count each of criminal attempt - homicide; 1 aggravated assault - serious bodily 

injury;

2 terroristic threats;

3 and recklessly endangering another person.

4 

On October 5, 2017, Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial. At the 

conclusion, the Trial Court found Appellant not guilty of criminal attempt 

(homicide) and guilty of aggravated assault (serious bodily injury inflicted), 

terroristic threats, and recklessly endangering another person. 

1 18 Pa. C.S. § 90l(a). 

2 18 Pa. C.S. § 2702(a)(l). 

3 18 Pa. C.S. § 2706(a)(l). 

4 18 Pa. C.S. § 2705. 

2 
On November 13, 2017, Appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court as 

follows: 

Count two: aggravated assault (serious bodily injury) - eleven and a half to 

twenty-three months incarceration with a three year period of probation to follow; 

Count three: terroristic threats - one year probation to run concurrent with 

the sentence imposed at Count two; and 

Count four: recklessly endangering another person - one year probation to 

run concurrent with the sentences imposed at Counts two and three. 

On November 13, 2017, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which was 

denied by the Trial Court on November 16, 2017. This timely appeal follows. 

STATEMENT OF ERRORS ON APPEAL 

Appellant's claim is set forth below exactly as Appellant presented it: 

1. The guilty verdicts for aggravated assault, terroristic threats, 

and REAP are against the weight of the evidence provided. 

The Commonwealth's evidence offered to prove that Ms. 

Engram did not act in self-defense was of such low quality, 

tenuous, vague, and uncertain that the guilty verdicts based 

thereon are based upon pure conjecture and surmise. Ms. 

Engram's testimony regarding the injuries she received, and 

the photographs, establish that Mr. Mc Williams had 

knocked her down. Ms. Engram was frightened for her two 

small children in the house. Thus, she took to defend herself 

and get Mr. Mc Williams to leave her home. Ms. Engram 

did call 911 to report the incident right away and remained 

in the residence to speak with police. The Commonwealth 

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Engram 

did not act in self-defense. Ms. Engram is entitled to a new 

3 
trial at which justice shall have another opportunity to 

prevail. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

On the morning of November 2, 2016, at approximately 6:45 am, Shatayla 

Alexandria Engram (hereinafter "Appellant") and Damian Lee McWilliams 

(hereinafter "Mc Williams"), who were in a romantic relationship and shared a 

home in the City of Pittsburgh, awoke to begin getting ready for work. At that 

time, an argument ensued between Appellant and Mc Williams, in which Appellant 

threatened to kill McWilliams. (T.T. 6-8, 22).

5 Mr. McWilliams informed 

Appellant that the relationship was over, got dressed, and attempted to gather up 

his personal belongings and leave the residence. While attempting to leave the 

residence, Appellant again threatened to kill Mc Williams and pulled a large 

kitchen knife from under the bed. (T.T. 8-9). 

Immediately thereafter, Appellant walked around the bed to block 

McWilliams' ability to exit the bedroom and again threatened to kill him if he 

attempted to leave. (T.T. 9, 10, 23). Seeing some space between Appellant and the 

doorway, McWilliams attempted to walk around Appellant, at which time 

Appellant raised the knife with her right hand and stabbed Mc Williams in his right 

mid-chest area. Appellant pulled the knife from Mc Williams' chest, and he fell 

5 The designation "T.T." followed by numerals refers to Trial Transcript, October 5, 2017. 

4 
onto the bed grabbing a rag to cover the bleeding wound. (T.T. 10-12). At no 

point did McWilliams possess a weapon. (T.T. 68). 

Mc Williams was able to leave the room but fell down the stairs to the first 

floor. He was able to get up and exit the residence. He drove a very short distance 

to his mother's residence where a 9-1-1 call was made. Paramedics responded to 

Mr. McWilliams' mother's residence, and he was emergently transported to 

UPMC Presbyterian Hospital for treatment. (T.T. 12-14). 

Detective Elvis Duratovic and Officer Steven John of the Pittsburgh Police 

Department responded to the domestic violence aspect of the call and proceeded to 

Appellant's residence. (T.T. 29, 55). Appellant told the officers that there had 

been a physical altercation between herself and Mc Williams, and that during the 

altercation she stabbed him. Appellant further stated that she sustained injuries on 

her neck and arms; however, officers observed no injuries on Appellant. (T.T. 30, 

34 ). During her contact with officers at her residence, Appellant changed her 

description of events multiple times. Initially she claimed to 9-1-1 operators that 

she had used a pocket knife, but when questioned by Detective Duratovic she 

claimed she went to the kitchen for the knife. She also stated that she stabbed him 

in the kitchen, but later changed her account alleging she stabbed him in the living 

room. (T.T. 31, 37, 68). Appellant's children later disclosed to Detective 

Duratovic that the altercation occurred in the bedroom. (T.T. 31 ). Detective 

5 
Duratovic recovered a large ten-inch kitchen knife between the bed and nightstand 

in the upstairs bedroom with blood on it. The bedroom showed clear signs of a 

visible struggle, and the interior stairs had clear indications that someone had fallen 

down the steps from the bedroom. (T. T. 31-3 3, 40-42 ). 

Mc Williams required three serious surgeries, and following his release from 

the hospital, he attended-a Mercy Hospital facility for approximately a month of 

rehabilitation. (T. T. 16-18 ). Appellant was arrested and charged as noted 

hereinabove. 

DISCUSSION 

Appellant alleges in her sole claim that the verdict was against the weight of 

the evidence. Specifically, Appellant alleges the Commonwealth's evidence 

offered to prove Appellant did not act in self-defense was "of such low quality, 

tenuous, vague, and uncertain that the guilty verdicts based thereon are based upon 

pure conjecture and surmise." Further, Appellant claims that her testimony 

regarding her injuries and photographs establish that "Mr. McWilliams had 

knocked her down," and that she was "frightened for her two small children in the 

house" which forced her to defend herself against Mc Williams. As such, 

Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Appellant did not act in self-defense, thus entitling her to a new trial. 

Appellant's claim is without merit. 

6 
The Superior Court has held that the applicable standard of review that 

applies to weight challenges is as follows: 

When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on 

the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court's 

decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so 

unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based 

thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable 

on appellate review. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on 

the weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider 

the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the 

weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to 

whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on 

the weight claim. 

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations and 

quotations omitted). Notably, a "new trial should not be granted because of a mere 

conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived 

at a different conclusion." Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 432 (Pa. Super. 

2012). The fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the testimony offered 

in assessing the credibility of witnesses, and it is not within the purview of the 

appellate court to reweigh the credibility determinations made by the fact finder. 

Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 738 (Pa. Super. 2012). 

Thus, when assessing a weight of the evidence claim, the appellate court 

reviews the Trial Court's exercise of discretion rather than answer for itself 

whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and relief is only 

granted if "the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of 

7 
discretion." Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135-36 (Pa. 2011) (internal 

citation omitted) (refusing to provide relief where jury determined defendant's 

testimony was self-serving and the verdict did not "shock one's sense of justice"). 

Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, an appellate court cannot reverse 

merely because it would have come to a different conclusion, rather, it must find 

"manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of 

support so as to be clearly erroneous." Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131, 

136 (Pa. 2007). 

Self-defense is the "use of force upon or toward another person" that is 

justifiable if "the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the 

purpose of protecting himself [herself] against the use of unlawful force by such 

other person on the present occasion." 18 Pa. C.S. § 505(a). An actor must retreat 

if able, except 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. § 505(b) (2)(ii). If necessity, lack of 

provocation, or impossibility of retreat are negated, the use of force or deadly force 

is not justified and a self-defense claim fails. Commonwealth v. Maione, 554 A.2d 

939, 944 (Pa. Super. 1989)(self-defense claim failed in case involving aggravated 

assault and recklessly endangering another person because defendant/actor had no 

reasonable belief that he was in danger of imminent bodily harm when he injured 

8 
the victim, he was not free from fault in provoking the incident, and he made no 

attempt to retreat). Further, for self-defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to 

disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 

A.3d 738, 740 (Pa. 2012). 

The Trial Court, sitting as the finder of fact, determined that Mc Williams' 

testimony was credible, demonstrating that: ( 1) Appellant threatened to kill him; 

(2) refused to let him leave; (3) retrieved a large knife; ( 4) blocked his ability to 

exit the bedroom; and (5) ultimately stabbed him in the chest. (T.T. 8, 9, 10, 11, 

25). As such, the evidence clearly established that: ( 1) Appellant did not 

reasonably believe that she was in danger of death or serious bodily injury at the 

time she stabbed Mc Williams; (2) Mc Williams did not provoke the altercation; and 

(3) Appellant had ample opportunity to leave the residence under the 

circumstances. As such, Appellant's actions during the altercation were not 

justified, thus negating her claim of self-defense. 

As the Trial Court stated at the time of entering the verdict, Appellant 

testified inconsistent with respect to "common sense and the physical dynamics" of 

the altercation, as well as how and where it occurred in the house. (V.T. 3).

6 

Additionally, the testimony established that the victim, Mc Williams, never 

threatened Appellant nor did he possess a weapon of any sort. Appellant gave 

6 The designation "V.T." followed by numerals refers to Verdict Transcript, October 12, 2017. 

9 
multiple inconsistent accounts of the events, and did not sustain any mjunes 

despite her representations to law enforcement. (T.T. 30, 34, 68). 

Therefore, the Commonwealth satisfied its burden in disproving self-defense 

beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the verdict was not against the weight of the 

evidence, and Appellant's claim is without merit. 

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of sentence imposed by this Court 

should be affirmed. 

By the Court, 

10