J-S51026-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DOUGLAS MARTIN SHUFFLER

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 638 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 2, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0002528-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2019

Appellant, Douglas Martin Shuffler, appeals from the judgment of 

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

his jury trial convictions for indecent exposure and open lewdness.1 We affirm. 

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

most of the procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to 

restate them. We add that on April 24, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to 

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). After the court granted an extension, Appellant timely filed 

a Rule 1925(b) statement on May 17, 2019. 

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3127(a), 5901, respectively. 
J-S51026-19

- 2 -

THE VERDICT WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE SO AS TO SHOCK [ONE’S] SENSE OF JUSTICE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 6). 

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jessica E. 

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

opinion discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial 

Court Opinion, filed May 30, 2019, at 3-5) (finding: jury had opportunity to 

observe Victim and found Victim’s testimony credible; video surveillance 

evidence corroborated Victim’s testimony that she spoke briefly with Appellant 

during encounter and then quickly backed away from his car and locked 

herself in her vehicle; video further supported Victim’s testimony that 

Appellant left scene immediately after encounter with Victim, Victim followed 

Appellant to obtain license plate number, and returned to motel to report 

incident; Victim’s written statement to police after incident was consistent with 

her trial testimony; Appellant’s written statement to police corroborated 

Victim’s testimony; jury verdict did not shock court’s sense of justice, and 

court properly denied Appellant’s challenge to weight of evidence). The record 

supports the rationale of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis 

of the trial court opinion. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S51026-19

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/7/2019
Circulated 09/18/2019 10:21 AM

COMMONWEALTH 

vs 

DOUGLAS MARTIN SHUFFLER 

OTN: U 608843-4 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CP-2 l-CR-2528-2018 

CHARGES: (1) INDECENT EXPOSURE 

(2) OPEN LEWDNESS 

AFFIANT: PTL. JUSTING. CARVER 

IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. l 925(a) 

Brewbaker, J., May�. 2019 - 

In this post-trial appeal, Appellant challenges his convictions on the charges of indecent 

exposure and open lewdness, following a jury trial held on January 28, 2019 and January 30, 

2019. This opinion is written pursuant to PA. R.A.P. 1925(a). Appellant's basis for appeal is as 

follows: 

1. The trial court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion for 

a new trial when the verdicts were against the weight of the 

evidence. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

On j°uly 23, 2018, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Gale Burkey (hereinafter, "Ms.") pulled 

into the Roadway Inn in Carlisle, Cumberland County, after finishing a day of work at the Navy 

Depot in Mechanicsburg. Ms. Burkey, not a resident of Cumberland County, was in the area for 

work purposes and was staying at the Roadway Inn while away from home. Ms. Burkey 

completed checking into the motel, drove around the building to the location of her room, and 

attempted to enter the room before discovering that her room key did not work. 

· After failing to enter her motel room, Ms. Burkey turned back to the parking lot, and 

noticed that a teal sedan had backed in next to her vehicle. Ms. Burkey approached the car after 
.thearing the driver, later identified as Appellant, call out to her, unsure of whether he was a 

maintenance employee of the Roadway Inn. After explaining to Appellant that her room key 

was not working and that she was returning to the motel office, Ms. Burkey walked over to her 

vehicle, before Appellant called her back to the driver's side window of his car. As Ms. Burkey 

approached Appellant's car for the second time, she testified that she heard Appellant make a 

lewd remark directed toward her, while he simultaneously exposed his genitals to her and began 

masturbating. 

Ms. Burkey immediately retreated to her vehicle and locked the door. Upon realizing 

that Ms. Burkey was not receptive to his attempt at courtship, Appellant drove out of the parking 

lot and fled the scene. Ms. Burkey was able to follow Appellant and obtain his license plate 

number, before returning to the motel office and calling the police. Appellant was located a few 

hours later at a nearby restaurant, detained and brought back to the Roadway Inn, where he was 

positively identified by Ms. Burkey as the perpetrator. 

The case proceeded to trial, which resulted in Appellant's convictions on January 30, 

2019. Appellant was sentenced on April 2, 2019, to a term of incarceration of not less than 9 

months nor more than 23 months at Count 1, Indecent Exposure, and a consecutive 12-month 

term of supervised probation at Count 2, Open Lewdness. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence 

motion on April 11, 2019, challenging the weight of the evidence and asking that this court 

reconsider and further reduce its mitigated-range sentence of Appellant. The post-sentence 

motion was denied by order of court dated April 15, 2019, prompting Appellant to file his timely 

Notice of Appeal on April 23, 2019. 

2 
.. ,1 

DISCUSSION 

Appellant raises one error on appeal, arguing that this Court improperly denied his postsentence motion for a new trial. The challenge invokes the weight of the evidence. For the 

following reasons, this Court properly denied Appellant's post-sentence motion for a new trial, 

and should be affirmed on appeal. 

To begin, as stated by the Superior Court in Com. v. Galindes, 2001 PA Super 315, 786 

A.2d 1004, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2001 ), when reviewing the weight of the evidence: 

[A] true weight of the evidence challenge "concedes that sufficient 

evidence exists to sustain the verdict" but questions which 

evidence is to be believed. 

Com. v. Galindes, supra, citing to Armbruster v. Horowitz, 

286 (Pa. Super. 1999). The Galindes court further stated: 

744 A.2d 285, 

An appellate court may review the trial court's decision to 

determine whether there was an abuse of discretion, but it may not 

substitute its judgment for that of the lower court. Indeed, an 

appellate court should not entertain challenges to the weight of the 

evidence since our examination is confined to the "cold record." 

Com. v. Murray, 408 Pa. Super. 435, 597 A.2d 111, 113 (Pa. 

Super. 1991 ). Our Court may not reverse a verdict unless it is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Id. 

"Finally, the trier of fact, 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." Com. v. Valette, 531 Pa. 

384, 613 A.2d 548, 549 (Pa. 1992). Our review, therefore, is 

confined to whether the trial court abused its discretion. 

Com. v. Galindes, supra (emphasis original). "It is the province of the jury to assess the 

,.. • "• • •• •--' ••••• ·--•·• •••" a '•• • 

credibility of witnesses, and a trial judge will not grant a new trial merely because of a conflict in 

the testimony or because he would have reached a different conclusion on the same facts, if'he 

had been the trier of fact." Com v. Vanlnviner, 599 Pa. 617, 630, 962 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2009) 

3 
,. 

(internal citations omitted). "Given the primary role of the jury in determining questions of 

credibility and evidentiary weight, this ... extraordinary power vested in trial judges to upset a 

jury verdict on grounds of evidentiary weight is very narrowly circumscribed." Com. v. Collins, 

70 A.3d 1245, 1251, 2013 PA Super 158, citing to Criswell v. King, 575 Pa. 34, 834 A.2d 505, 

513 (2003). 

Here, Appellant contends that this Court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion for 

. . 

a new trial, as the jury's guilty verdicts were purportedly against the weight of evidence. The 

factfinder had the opportunity to observe Ms. Burkey as she testified and was free to believe all, 

some or none of her testimony against Appellant. Clearly, the twelve factfinders unanimously 

found Ms. Burkey sufficiently credible to support finding Appellant guilty of all of the charges 

against him. Notably, Ms. Burkey's testimony that she spoke very briefly to Appellant, before 

quickly backing away from his car and locking herself in her vehicle was supported by the video 

surveillance recording from the camera covering the parking lot of the Roadway Inn.' The video 

recording further supported Ms. Burkey's testimony that Appellant left the motel directly after 

this encounter, and that Ms. Burkey followed him to secure his license plate number and 

immediately stopped at the motel office to report the crime. Ms. Burkey's written statement, 

provided to the police shortly after the incident with Appellant, largely corroborated her 

testimony on the witness stand. 

Additionally, Appellant's written statement that he provided to the police shortly after the 

incident corroborated Ms. Burkey's testimony, in that Appellant stated that he encountered Ms. 

I It is important to note that the parking lot camera, located on the other side of the lot from the location of Appellant 

and Ms. Burkey's interaction, only captured a view of one of Appellant's shoulders and his head as the camera's 

view was obstructed by Appellant's vehicle. 

4 
Burkey in the motel parking lot, squeezed his thighs and "offered her anything that she wanted."

2 

Ultimately, this Court did not find the jury's conclusions regarding Appellant's guilt and the 

credibility of Ms. Burkey to be shocking to its sense of justice, and as such properly denied 

Appellant's post-sentence motion for a new trial. 

Courtney Hair LaRue, Esquire 

Chief Deputy District Attorney 

Christopher R. Sherwood, Esquire 

Assistant Public Defender 

2 Notes of Testimony, in Re: Trial, held January 30, 2019 at 106. 

5