J-S19039-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee :

:

v. :

:

MARK ANTHONY MURDOCK, :

:

Appellant : No. 2749 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on September 4, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,

Criminal Division, No. CP-15-CR-0000993-2014

BEFORE: STABILE, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED APRIL 15, 2015

Mark Anthony Murdock (“Murdock”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed following his conviction of harassment.1 We affirm. 

The trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in 

its Opinion, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 11/12/14, 1-2, 3-5. 

On appeal, Murdock raises the following question for our review: 

“Whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for a conviction on the 

charge of harassment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1)?” Brief for 

Appellant at 4 (capitalization omitted).

Murdock contends that the evidence was so inconsistent that, as a 

matter of law, the essential elements of the crime of harassment could not 

 

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1).
J-S19039-15

- 2 -

have been found as a matter of law. Id. at 13. Murdock asserts that the 

victim, Amber Brown (“Brown”), gave three different accounts of the event. 

Id. Murdock claims that the Commonwealth failed to connect Brown’s 

injuries with her differing versions of the event. Id. Murdock contends that 

Reading Hospital found no physical evidence of the complaints made by 

Brown. Id. at 16. Murdock asserts that, even if the Commonwealth 

established the physical elements of harassment, the evidence was 

insufficient to establish that he possessed the requisite mens rea. Id. 

Murdock claims that the prior incident, which occurred on December 3, 

2013, is evidence that he lacked the requisite mens rea for the subject 

incident. Id. at 17.

The trial court addressed Murdock’s claim, set forth the relevant law, 

and concluded that his claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 

11/12/14, 5-7. We agree with the trial court’s sound reasoning and affirm 

on this basis. See id.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/15/2015
J-S19039-15

- 3 -
September 22, 2014. We issued a Rule 1925(b) Order on September 26, 2014. The 

The defendant filed an appeal to our September 4, 2014 judgment of sentence on 

that the defendant complete an anger management program. 

Harassment and sentenced the defendant to 90 days of probation, including a condition 

evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, this Court found the defendant guilty of 

During the bench trial, both the Commonwealth and the defendant presented 

and the summary charge of Harassment proceeded immediately to a bench trial. 

September 4, 2014, the charge of Simple Assault was withdrawn by the Commonwealth 

J '. r-, .• 

'"'"''-··· .... 

-:."·,:!t I 

:~18:;P~cfC.S. §2701 (a)(1)), and Harassment (18 Pa.C.S. §2709(a)(1 )). A preliminary 

7'~ t;s(:.J' 

he~{ii':J':g was held on April 1, 2014 and both charges were held over for trial. On 

"--· 

c ... J5"n February 18, 2014, the defendant was charged on two counts: Simple Assault 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

-:}"' 

below, we find no errors were made. 

C) 

guilty verdict and submits that this Court made certain errors. For the reasons set forth 

Mark Anthony Murdock ("the defendant") appeals this Court's September 4, 2014 

BY: WHEATCRAFT, J. NOVEMBER 10, 2014 

RULE 1925(a) OPINION 

Nicholas J. Casenta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for the Commonwealth 

Nathan M. Schenker, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant 

CRIMINAL ACTION - LAW 

MARKANTHONYMURDOCK 

v. 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

NO.: CP-15-0000993-2014 

2749 EDA 2014 

COMMONWEAL TH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

~-- ( J-- S/1{)3y /S l . . ' 

AMW/gd/s:\admin\wheatcraft\criminal\appeals\opinions\cw v. murdock,mark cp-15-0993-2014 appeal opinion.doc 

Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page2of8 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the appropriate test is 'whether the 

evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict-winner, are sufficient to establish all the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."' Commonweelth v. Williams, 554 

Pa. 1, 9, 720 A.2d 679, 682-683 (1998), citing Commonwealth v. Hughes, 536 Pa. 355, 

639 A.2d 763, 766 (Pa.1994). "[W]here no single bit of evidence will by itself 

conclusively establish guilt[;] the verdict will [nonetheless] be sustained where the 

totality of the evidence supports the finding of guilt." Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 

256, 561 A.2d 699, 704 (1989). Evidence will be found to be insufficient only when "a 

defendant has shown that the fact-finder overlooked such a preponderance of the 

evidence that the resulting verdict shocks the conscience." Williams, supra, citing 

Commonwealth v. Walker, 656 A.2d 90, 97 (Pa.1995). 

defendant filed a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal on October 17, 

2014. Our Rule 1925(a) Opinion follows. 

ERROR CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANT 

In his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, the defendant sets 

forth the following error: 

1. There was insufficient evidence for this Court to convict the defendant with the 

offense of Harassment (18 Pa.C.S. §2709(a)(1 )) because: 

a. Amber Brown, the victim, gave multiple inconsistent statements; and 

b. Amber Brown's statement to the police and the photographs taken by the 

police were inconsistent with the content of Reading Hospital's treatment 

records. 

( ( Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page 3 of8 

1 The medical records identify the patient as Amber Dausi. The parties stipulated that these 

records were for the treatment of the victim in this case, Amber Brown. (N.T., 09/04/14, p. 3, II. 

11-13, p. 24, II. 16-24). 

Matthew Truscott that Amber Brown is his ex-girlfriend and her apartment is located at 

the Pennsylvania State Police Embreeville Barracks. The defendant stated to Trooper 

1. At about 7:30 p.m., the defendant presented himself at the lobby of 

The chronology of events that occurred on January 23, 2014 is as follows: 

Defendant, pp. 35-41 ). There was no other evidence presented by the defendant. 

exhibits. The defendant was the only witness for the defense case. (N.T., 09/04/14, 

N.T., 09/04/14, p. 15, II. 2-17). The defendant did not object to the admission of these 

2013 by Trooper Truscott, of injuries to Ms. Brown's arm and hand. (Exhibits, C-2, C-3; 

C-1; N.T., 09/04/14, p. 12, I. 12 - p. 13, I. 4), and two photographs, taken January 23, 

admission of the written statement prepared by Ms. Brown on January 23, 2013 (Exhibit, 

Matthew Truscott, and Trooper Amos Glick. The Commonwealth also moved for the 

The Commonwealth presented three fact witnesses: Amber Brown, Trooper 

23, 2014 (Exhibit, C-6; N.T., 09/04/14, p.4, 11.11-22). 

N.T., 09/04/14, p. 3, II. 11-13, p. 24, II. 16-24), and (3) the police incident report of January 

act incident) (Exhibit, C-5; N.T., 09/04/14, p.3, I. 24 - p. 4, I. 8), (2) the medical records 

from Reading Hospital for Amber Brown's 1 treatment on January 24, 2014 (Exhibit, C-4; 

documents into evidence: (1) the police incident report of December 3, 2013 (the prior bad 

Commonwealth and the defendant also stipulated to the admission of the following 

defendant against the same victim, Amber Brown. (N.T., 09/04/14, p. 3, II. 15-23). The 

admission of evidence of a prior bad act committed on December 3, 2013 by the 

During the bench trial held on September 4, 2014, the defendant stipulated to the 

FACTS 

r; \ .. • - 

,' ( . Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page 4 of8 

2014, she was six months pregnant with the defendant's unborn child. (N.T., 09/04/14, 

4. Ms. Brown also reported to Trooper Glick that, as of January 23, 

N.T., 09/04/14, Truscott, p. 26, II. 16-25). 

defendant and pulled him outside. (Exhibit, C-6; N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 11, II. 1-11; 

Brown into a wall or door causing bruising to Ms. Brown. The neighbors grabbed the 

effort to place Ms. Brown between himself and the neighbors, the defendant pushed Ms. 

defendant then grabbed Ms. Brown and placed her between him and the neighbors. In his 

09/04/14, Brown, p. 10, I. 25 - p. 11, I. 2). They confronted the defendant, and the 

upstairs neighbors heard the argument and came downstairs to investigate. (N.T., 

belongings and they began to argue. (Exhibit, C-6; N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 9, I. 10 - p. 

10, I. 12; N.T., 09/04/14, Trooper Glick, p. 32, II. 9 - 20). She explained that her two 

reported that the defendant had arrived at her apartment to pick up his personal 

3. At about 8:30 p.m., during her interview with the troopers, Ms. Brown 

Brown. (N.T., 09/04/14, Trooper Truscott, p. 22, I. 24 - p. 23, I. 3). 

Truscott and Trooper Glick proceeded to 1010 Sugarsbridge Road to interview. Amber 

2. After taking the defendant's statement at the barracks, Trooper 

Defendant, p. 40, II. 3-18). 

drive to the barracks. (Exhibit, C-6; N.T., 09/04/14, Trooper Truscott, p. 22; N.T., 09/04/14, 

he called the State Police to report the assault by the neighbors and was instructed to 

Ms. Brown's apartment, grabbed him, and pulled him outside. The defendant testified that 

reported to Trooper Truscott that the two men who lived in the upstairs apartment entered 

personal belongings and while he was there they had an argument. The defendant 

explained that he had returned earlier that day to Ms. Brown's apartment to retrieve his 

1010 Sugarsbridge Road, West Bradford Township, Chester County. The defendant 

( Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page S of8 

defendant grabbed her and used her as a shield against the two male neighbors. She 

Ms. Brown reported to the police and prepared a written statement describing how the 

(Exhibit, C-6; N.T., 09/04/14, Defendant, p. 39, I. 18-23). A few hours after the incident, 

only physical contact on January 23, 2014 was between him and the two male neighbors. 

as is often the case in trials involving domestic violence. The defendant testified that the 

We agree with the defendant that some of the evidence presented was conflicting, 

annoy, or alarm. We found that the Commonwealth sustained its burden. 

doubt that the defendant had physical contact with Ms. Brown with the intent to harass, 

Court, as the fact finder, was whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable 

person to physical contact." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). The question presented to this 

harass, annoy or alarm another, ... strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other 

2709(a)(1) provides that a person is guilty of Harassment if that person, "with intent to 

The offense at issue is Harassment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §2709(a)(1 ). Section 

19 - p. 16, I. 6; N.T., 09/04/14, Truscott, p. 23, I. 21- p. 24, I. 10). 

DISCUSSION 

with the defendant. (Exhibit, C-4, pp. 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19; N.t., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 15, I. 

to the medical staff at Reading Hospital that her injury resulted from a physical altercation 

24, 2014. (Exhibit, C-4, p. 9); N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 15, I. 19 - p. 16, I. 6). She reported 

6. Ms. Brown sought medical treatment for pain in her hip on January 

(Exhibits, C-2, C-3; N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p.14, I. 16 - p. 15, I. 13; N.T., 09/04/14, Trooper 

Truscott, p. 23, II. 11-20). 

on her right elbow, a bruise on her left hand, and two small scratches on her left hand. 

5. During the interview with Ms. Brown, Trooper Truscott saw a bruise 

Trooper Glick, p. 32, II. 21-24 N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 7, I. 22 - p. 8, I. 3). 

(. 

( 

\ 

Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page 6 of8 

described the physical contact as taking place in the doorway to the outdoor deck. (Exhibit, 

C-1 ). The next day, she reported to the treating staff at Reading Hospital that she was 

"shoved" against a wall or a door by the defendant. (Exhibit, C-4, pp. 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19). 

At the time of trial, in the presence of the defendant, Ms. Brown recanted her prior 

statements, and testified that the defendant had not grabbed her or touched her on 

January 23, 2014. (N.T., 09/04/14, Brown, p. 11, II. 17-23, p. 19, II. 5-17). 

As the fact finder, this Court was "free to believe all, some, or none of the evidence 

presented." Commonwealth v. Miller, 555 Pa. 354, 724 A.2d 895, 901 (1999), cert. denied, 

528 U.S. 903, 120 S.Ct. 242 (1999). Credibility determinations and the weight given to the 

testimony presented and the out-of-court statements entered into evidence were within 

this Court's exclusive control. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 576 Pa. 23, 838 A.2d 663, 671 

(2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1008, 125 S.Ct. 617 (2004); Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 

580 Pa. 303, 860 A.2d 102, 107 (2004). 

After considering all of the evidence presented, we did not find the defendant's 

testimony to be credible. We found that Ms. Brown's out-of-court statements were credible 

and persuasive in that those statements corroborated each other and the pictures of her 

injuries. (Exhibits C-1, C-2, C-2, C-4). The only discrepancy between Ms. Brown's written 

statement and the report she gave at the hospital relates to the terms used in the 

description of events. At different times, Ms. Brown used the words: door, doorway, or 

wall, to describe the area impacted by her body. We also find that the words: grabbed, 

shoved, pushed, and thrown, are consistent in describing the defendant laying his hands 

on her and physically moving Ms. Brown. Thus, although she uses different descriptive 

words, the scene described by Ms. Brown in her written statement to the police and the 

statements given to the medical staff at Reading Hospital are materially consistent. 

( ( Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page 7 of8 

proved the defendant guilty of Harassment beyond a reasonable doubt. 

inferences drawn from that evidence, the Commonwealth has sustained its burden and 

determination that given the totality of the credible evidence, and all reasonable 

or that our verdict shocks the conscience. Williams, supra. It was and continues to be our 

not shown that we, as the fact-finder, have overlooked competent and credible evidence 

Considering the above credibility determinations, we find that the defendant has 

provide legally sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction). 

2014 WL 5018593 (Pa.Super. 2014)(facts stated out-of-court and recanted at trial can 

her testimony recanting them nine months later. See Commonwealth v. Buford, -- A.3d --, 

statement and the statements to the medical staff to be more credible and persuasive than 

evidence of facts contained therein); Pa.RE. 803.1 (1 ). Consequently, we found the written 

972 A.2d 531 (Pa.Super. 2009)(medical records are admissible under the hearsay rules as 

medical records as substantive evidence. Turner v. Valley Housing Development Corp., 

treatment for herself and her unborn child. We accept the factual statements made in the 

note that Ms. Brown's statements to the medical staff were given to obtain medical 

the medical providers were voluntary and made soon after the incident. It is important to 

We also found it significant that the written statement and the statements given to 

statement. 

did not have an opportunity to give this complaint to the police or add it to her written 

testimony that she did not feel pain in her hip until the next day to be credible. Thus, she 

severe hip pain. The medical notes reflect the complaint made. We found Ms. Brown's 

the photographs are to an upper arm and a hand. The complaint at the hospital was of 

consistent with the medical records from Reading Hospital. The injuries documented on 

We also found, and continue to find, that the photos taken by Trooper Truscott are 

/ ( ( . 

rnr, ,,1 .,~n,& !4:48 

Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM
Page 8 of8 

Ann Marie Wheatcraft J. 

BY THE COURT: 

Harassment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). 

AFFIRM our September 4, 2014 judgment of sentence finding the defendant guilty of 

For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully ask that the Superior Court 

CONCLUSION 

( Circulated 03/20/2015 10:51 AM