J-S11011-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOSEPH ANTHONY CAROTHERS

Appellant No. 1303 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 19, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County

Criminal Division at No: CP-38-CR-0000130-2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED APRIL 07, 2015

Joseph Anthony Carothers (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered after a jury convicted him of recklessly endangering 

another person1in connection with a road rage incident. We affirm.

The facts, as set forth by the trial court, are as follows.

On December 5, 2012, Jason Burrows was working on a vehicle 

with his roommate, Nick Fulton at their residence located at 

2102 Allegheny Avenue [in] Lebanon[.] Burrows and Fulton left 

the residence to purchase oil at AutoZone for the vehicle. While 

traveling down East Street, Burrows’ 1988 Ford Ranger was 

struck from behind. The collision occurred as both vehicles were 

traveling approximately 15 miles per hour. Burrows identified 

[Appellant] as the driver of the vehicle that struck his truck. 

After the collision, [Appellant] attempted to flee by driving 

around Burrows' truck and speeding down the road. Burrows and 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
J-S11011-15

- 2 -

Fulton pursued [Appellant] to try to get him to stop his vehicle 

and confront him regarding the collision.

During the pursuit, the vehicles turned onto King Street. Burrows 

testified that [Appellant] slowed down and sped up his vehicle 

multiple times during the pursuit. At one point, [Appellant] 

slammed on his brakes. This caused Burrows to rear end 

[Appellant]'s vehicle at approximately 30-35 m.p.h. As a result, 

Burrows was charged with Recklessly Endangering Another 

Person. Burrows pled guilty to this charge and was sentenced to 

a period of probation. 18 Pa.[C.S.] § 2705. Burrows was further 

required to pay fines, costs, and restitution for the damage to 

[Appellant]'s vehicle. 

After this second collision, Burrows and Fulton continued to 

pursue [Appellant]. They followed [Appellant] down Prescott 

Road. [Appellant] continued to speed up and slow down as the 

vehicles traveled down the road. At some point, [Appellant]'s 

vehicle ended up in the grass bordering the road. When 

[Appellant] slowed to a stop, Fulton exited the truck and 

approached [Appellant]’s vehicle. However, [Appellant] then 

continued to drive in the grass. Burrows continued to follow 

[Appellant] in the truck while Fulton chased both vehicles on 

foot. At some point, [Appellant] stopped his vehicle in the grass 

and Burrows stopped his truck next to the road. [Appellant] 

suddenly pulled his vehicle back onto the road, striking Burrows 

truck from behind. This impact caused [Appellant]’s vehicle to 

stall and become inoperable. Fulton approached [Appellant]'s 

vehicle and tried to enter through the sunroof. As a result of this 

conduct, Fulton was charged with and pled guilty to Disorderly 

Conduct. 

After this third collision, [Appellant] exited his vehicle and 

continued down the street on foot. Burrows and Fulton ceased 

pursuing [Appellant]. They returned to the residence and notified 

the police of the incident. [Appellant] also contacted 911 

emergency services during the incident. 

Trial Court Opinion, dated 7/21/14, at 3-5, citing N.T., 12/3/13, at 13-23, 

40-42, and 89-91 (internal citations omitted).
J-S11011-15

- 3 -

The trial court also noted that Sergeant Kenneth Zimmerman, the 

police officer responding to Appellant’s 911 call, had found physical evidence 

that corroborated Burrows’s testimony. He found parts of Burrows’s tail light 

and parts of Appellant’s front grill at the intersection of Jackson and Prescott 

Roads. The officer followed a fluid trail from Appellant’s radiator to the site 

of Appellant’s disabled vehicle. The location where the officer found the 

debris is located approximately 1.7 miles before where Appellant claims the 

front of his vehicle impacted the back of Burrows’s vehicle. See Trial Court 

Opinion at 9-10. Appellant was charged with recklessly endangering another 

person and the summary offense of Careless Driving.

A jury trial ensued, at which Burrows, a police officer, and Appellant 

testified. The jury found Appellant guilty of recklessly endangering another 

person, and he was sentenced.2 After the denial of his post-sentence 

motion, Appellant timely appealed to this Court.

Appellant raises the following issues:

a. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to 

sustain [Appellant]’s conviction of recklessly endangering 

another person?

b. Whether [Appellant]’s conviction was against the weight of 

the evidence?

The standard of review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence 

is firmly established. 

____________________________________________

2 The trial court found Appellant guilty of the careless driving.
J-S11011-15

- 4 -

There is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction when the 

evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to enable the 

fact-finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of 

the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence[.] ... The trier of fact is free to believe 

all, part, or none of the evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Martin, 101 A.3d 706, 718 (Pa. 2014) (citations 

omitted).

“A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he 

recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in 

danger of death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. The mens 

rea for the crime of recklessly endangering another person is a “conscious 

disregard of a known risk of death or great bodily injury to another person.” 

Commonwealth v. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146, 155 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal 

denied, 69 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). 

In his first issue, Appellant avers that because both Burrows and the 

police officer allegedly contradicted themselves at trial, the evidence 

supporting the verdict was “inherently unreliable” and thus “insufficient as a 

matter of law.” Appellants Brief at 11, 14. This issue is without merit.

Contradictions in testimony speak to the weight of the evidence, not 

its sufficiency. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031, 1038 

(Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). As 

demonstrated by his nearly word-for-word recitation of the same argument 
J-S11011-15

- 5 -

presented here as that provided in support his Issue “b” weight challenge, 

Appellant has shown that he is aware of this well-settled principle. 

Secondly, Appellant’s self-serving, out-of-context reiteration of 

testimony that pertains to matters other than the elements of the crime 

does not render the evidence upon which the verdict was based unreliable or 

insufficient.3 As noted above, in reviewing sufficiency challenges, we view 

the totality of the evidence admitted at trial “in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth as verdict-winner.” Martin, supra at 718. 

In the instant case, as the trial court observed, the evidence showed 

that Appellant initiated the incident by rear-ending Burrows’s truck and 

speeding away. When Appellant realized Burrows was chasing him, he

slowed down and sped up his vehicle multiple times during the pursuit. At 

one point, Appellant slammed on his brakes, causing Burrows to rear end 

Appellant’s vehicle at approximately 30-35 m.p.h. See Trial Court Opinion 

at 3. 

After that second collision, Appellant again left the scene with Burrows 

and Fulton in pursuit, and continued to speed up and slow down as the 

vehicles traveled down the road. See id. at 4. At one point, Appellant 

stopped his vehicle in the grass bordering the road, and Burrows stopped his 

truck next to the road. Appellant then suddenly pulled his vehicle back onto 

____________________________________________

3 See Appellant’s Brief at 11-13.
J-S11011-15

- 6 -

the road, striking Burrows’s truck from behind. See id. As the trial court 

concluded, “the physical evidence presented at trial significantly refutes 

[Appellant’s] story.” Trial Court Opinion at 2. We agree. Because sufficient 

evidence supports the jury’s determination that Appellant “conscious[ly] 

disregard[ed] ... a known risk of death or great bodily injury to another 

person” when he drove his vehicle in a reckless manner, this issue has no 

merit. Fabian, supra at 155.4

Appellant also avers that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. As noted, he essentially repeats, nearly word-for-word, the same 

argument regarding allegedly contradictory testimony that he provided in 

support of his sufficiency challenge. 

In raising a weight claim, an appellant “concedes that the evidence is 

sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the

evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty 

verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 

1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1792 (U.S. 2014). The 

____________________________________________

4 The trial court also observed that the evidence showed that Appellant had 

motive to cause damage to Burrows’s truck because just prior to date of the 

incident, Appellant had ended a relationship with Tracy Barney, Fulton’s 

sister-in-law. Burrows testified that he was in a relationship with Tracy at 

the time of the accident. In addition, Burrows and Sergeant Zimmerman 

each testified that there were several incidents of vandalism at the property 

where Barney lived with Burrows and Fulton, property that is located in a 

small neighborhood off the nearby main roads. Appellant “coincidentally 

took this detour from the main road on his drive home from work.” Trial 

Court Opinion at 11.
J-S11011-15

- 7 -

general rule in our Commonwealth is that “a weight of the evidence claim is 

primarily addressed to the discretion of the judge who actually presided at 

trial.” Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698, 702 (Pa. 2002);

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139, 1148 (Pa. 2006).

Accordingly, 

[a]ppellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of 

discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict 

is against the weight of the evidence. Because the trial judge has 

had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an 

appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings 

and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial 

court's determination that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis 

in original; citations omitted).

Discretion is abused “where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable 

or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is 

a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, as the trial court observed:

Burrows testified that [Appellant] initially rear[-]ended his truck 

on East Street before speeding off on East King Street towards 

Prescott Road. Thereafter, Burrows stated that he rear[-]ended 

[Appellant] at the intersection of East King Street and Prescott 

Road. After [Appellant]’s vehicle left the roadway into the grass 

near Reistville Road, he rear[-]ended Burrows’ truck a second 

time in an attempt to regain access to the roadway. 

[Appellant] told a different story at trial. [Appellant] alleged that 

he did not strike the rear of Burrows’ truck until near the end of 

the pursuit when he attempted to pull his vehicle back onto the 

road. He explained that Burrows’ truck struck his vehicle two 

times before he was forced into the grass. It was only then, 
J-S11011-15

- 8 -

[Appellant] alleged, that the front of his vehicle made contact 

with the rear of Burrows’ truck.

Sergeant Kenneth Zimmerman also testified at trial. Sergeant 

Zimmerman has a total of 21 years of experience in police 

enforcement. On December 5, 2012, he responded to a 911 call 

made by [Appellant]. He explained how [Appellant] described 

the events to him on the day of the incident. According to 

Sergeant Zimmerman, [Appellant] initially told him that the front 

of his vehicle was damaged because Burrows backed his truck 

into [Appellant]’s vehicle after he had stalled near Reistville 

Road. This statement clearly differed from what [Appellant] 

testified to at trial, thus called into question [Appellant]’s 

credibility.

In addition, Sergeant Zimmerman located physical evidence that 

corroborated Burrows’ testimony. ... The location where 

Sergeant Zimmerman found the debris is located approximately 

1.7 miles before where [Appellant] claims the front of his vehicle 

impacted the back of Burrows’ vehicle.

* * *

The evidence presented at trial is simply not in line with 

Appellant’s story, and we therefore find that the jury afforded 

appropriate weight to [the] testimony.

Trial Court Opinion at 10-11.

Based on our review of the record and the trial court’s opinion 

rendered on Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we conclude that that court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining that the verdict was supported by 

the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S11011-15

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/7/2015