J-S86032-16

_____________________________

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TRAVIS JOHN HALLAM

Appellant No. 701 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 5, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000057-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 23, 2016

Appellant, Travis John Hallam, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial 

convictions for aggravated assault and simple assault, and his bench trial 

conviction for summary harassment.1 We affirm. 

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

this case as follows:

On February 11, 2015, at around 10:00 p.m., [Victim] 

received a Facebook message from Waylon Muniz, a 

recently reconnected childhood friend, asking for a ride 

from Bentleyville to Centerville. When [Victim] arrived in 

Bentleyville, [Mr.] Muniz was waiting with Appellant.... 

[Mr.] Muniz sat in [Victim’s] passenger seat and Appellant 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(4); 2701(a)(1); 2709(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S86032-16

- 2 -

entered the backseat when [Mr.] Muniz changed the 

destination from Centerville to Brownsville. [Victim] took 

the men to two locations in Brownsville. At the second 

location, [Mr.] Muniz and Appellant exited the vehicle and 

met people parked in another car nearby. [Mr.] Muniz and 

Appellant returned to [Victim’s] vehicle, entering the same 

seats, and asked to be returned to the first location. 

[Victim] became frustrated driving the men around and 

said he would never do anything like this for them again. 

At that point, [Victim] felt an object hit the back of his 

head and Appellant said[,] “don’t fuckin’ move.”

According to [Victim], his “natural instinct” was to fight 

back by knocking whatever Appellant had in his hand down 

and then fighting to contain Appellant. [Mr.] Muniz pulled 

the keys from the ignition, locked the door, and then 

began to choke [Victim]. [Victim] attempted to exit, but 

the door was locked and he began to be struck in the head 

a few times. [Victim] identified Commonwealth Exhibit 1—

namely, a .22 Ruger revolver, as being the item he was 

struck in the head with by Appellant. [Victim] sustained 

two lacerations to the back of his head, felt a headache for 

five days, and described the pain as a nine out of ten.

All of the men exited the vehicle and [Victim] was going 

towards [Mr.] Muniz when [Mr.] Muniz asked Appellant for 

“the piece.” Appellant threw a punch at [Victim] and 

missed when [Victim] pulled a pocketknife from his pocket 

and struck Appellant. [Victim] screamed for a bystander 

about one hundred yards away to call the police which 

caused Appellant and [Mr.] Muniz to run away. [Victim] 

screamed at [Mr.] Muniz for his keys, [Mr.] Muniz 

responded they were on the floor, and [Victim] was able to 

leave the scene. When questioned by Pennsylvania State 

Police Officer Joseph Timms, [Victim] directed the police to 

the wooded area where [Mr.] Muniz and Appellant ran and 

the police recovered the gun in that area. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed June 13, 2016, at 2-3) (internal citations omitted). 

Procedurally, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with aggravated 

assault, simple assault, three counts of robbery, theft, and summary 
J-S86032-16

- 3 -

harassment. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on April 4, 2016. On April 

5, 2016, the jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault and simple 

assault; the court convicted Appellant of summary harassment. The jury 

found Appellant not guilty on the remaining charges. The court sentenced 

Appellant on May 5, 2016, to an aggregate term of twenty-four (24) to 

forty-eight (48) months’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed post-sentence 

motions challenging the weight of the evidence on May 6, 2016, which the 

court denied on May 9, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on 

May 12, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on June 2, 2016.

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WHEN THE VERDICT WAS 

AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?

WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO STRIKE THE 

UNSOLICITED COMMENT MADE BY THE ALLEGED 

VICTIM...DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HE WAS 

TOLD NOT TO CALL 911?

(Appellant’s Brief at 3). 

When examining a challenge to the weight of the evidence, our 

standard of review is as follows:

The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the 

finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none 

of the evidence and to determine the credibility of 

the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute 

its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we 
J-S86032-16

- 4 -

may only reverse the...verdict if it is so contrary to 

the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

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. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 

(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) 

(internal citations omitted). A “trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial 

based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” 

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 363, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225 

(2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 909, 130 S.Ct. 3282, 176 L.Ed.2d 1191 

(2010). 

Additionally, the standard of review of a trial court’s admission or 

exclusion of evidence is well established and very narrow: 

Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie 

within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a 

reviewing court will not reverse the court’s decision on 

such a question absent a clear abuse of discretion. An 

abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but 

is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the 

exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or 

the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown 

by the evidence of record. 

Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1185-86 (Pa.Super. 2005), 

appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723, 890 A.2d 1057 (2005) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]o constitute reversible error, an 
J-S86032-16

- 5 -

evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial 

to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200, 

1209 (Pa.Super. 2005) (internal citation omitted). 

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Nancy D. 

Vernon, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 3-6) (finding: (1) jury’s verdict is 

consistent with evidence presented at trial; jury credited Victim’s testimony; 

as verdict was not contrary to evidence it does not shock one’s sense of 

justice; verdict was not against weight of evidence, so court properly denied 

Appellant’s motion for new trial; (2) during cross-examination of Victim, 

defense counsel elicited testimony from Victim that he did not call 911 

when he got home on evening in question because “[he] was told not to”; 

Appellant fails to explain how he was prejudiced by Victim’s response; 

defense counsel elicited response, and Victim did not attribute statement as 

coming from any identifiable source; Appellant cannot show abuse of 

discretion or prejudice). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial 

court’s opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S86032-16

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/23/2016
Circulated 11/10/2016 03:06 PM