J-S08015-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL DENNIS BELL

Appellant No. 913 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 4, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No: CP-22-CR-0004304-2018

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 12, 2021

Appellant, Michael Dennis Bell, appeals from his judgment of sentence 

of five to ten years’ imprisonment for aggravated assault and related offenses. 

We affirm.

On June 23, 2018, Nikki Maldonado was residing with her ex-boyfriend 

and the father of two of her children, Keith Sutherland, in Harrisburg. They 

got into an argument that evening that continued intermittently past midnight. 

In the early morning hours of June 24, 2018, Maldonado left the residence 

and called Appellant, whom she had been dating for about a month, and told 

him about the argument with Sutherland. Appellant went to meet with her to 

make sure that she was okay. Appellant claimed that he found a gun in an 

alley en route to the meeting, and he put it in his pocket.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S08015-21

- 2 -

Appellant met Maldonado at a market, and Maldonado indicated that she 

wanted to return to her residence to get some of her possessions, including 

her wallet. Appellant accompanied her back to the residence and waited 

outside while she entered and retrieved her items. She left the residence, and 

they began walking down an alley. 

At this point, Sutherland exited the residence and began running after 

Maldonado. It is undisputed that Sutherland had a knife in his pocket, 

although it is disputed as to whether it was visible to Appellant and Maldonado. 

There also was disputed testimony as to whether Sutherland was holding a 

bottle and why he was running after Maldonado. 

Appellant shot Sutherland in the stomach during the altercation in the 

alley. Appellant testified that he shot Sutherland in self-defense, and that he 

was afraid Sutherland would hit him or Maldonado with the bottle Sutherland 

was carrying. Sutherland claimed he was not holding a bottle, was not 

advancing on Appellant, and had his hands up in the air when he was shot.

Following a three-day jury trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of 

aggravated assault and carrying a firearm without a license. The jury 

acquitted Appellant of attempted murder. On March 4, 2020, the court 

imposed sentence. Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the 

court denied, and a timely appeal. Both Appellant and the court complied with 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises three issues in this appeal:
J-S08015-21

- 3 -

i. Did not the court err in precluding [Appellant] from introducing 

evidence that the complainant made a statement to [M]aldonado’s 

minor son that he was going to kill [M]aldonado where: (a) the 

out-of-court statement of the minor son was admissible under two

exceptions to the hearsay rule; (b) the complainant’s out-of-court 

statement was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule 

and was also admissible regardless of the truth of the matters set 

forth therein; and (c) the totality of the evidence was relevant 

under Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(b) and 405(b)(2) to prove that the 

complainant was the initial aggressor?

ii. Did not the court err in precluding [Appellant] from introducing 

evidence that the complainant was drunk and was aggressive 

when drunk where the evidence was relevant under Pa.R.E.

404(a)(2)(b) and 405(b)(2) to prove that the complainant was the 

initial aggressor?

iii. Did not the court abuse its discretion by failing to grant 

[Appellant] a new trial on the basis that the guilty verdict was 

against the weight of the evidence when the totality of the 

evidence as to the issues of self-defense and defense of others 

was unreliable, contradictory, and incredible?

Appellant’s Brief at 6-7.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred by precluding Maldonado 

from testifying about a statement that Maldonado’s minor son made to her 

four hours after the shooting. The trial court ruled that this statement was 

inadmissible hearsay. Appellant contends that it was admissible under the 

excited utterance and present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay 

rule. We review the trial court’s decision to preclude evidence for an abuse of 

discretion, Commonwealth v. Rosen, 42 A.3d 988, 994 (Pa. 2012), and we 

conclude that the trial court properly excluded this testimony.

Sutherland and Maldonado resided together with Maldonado’s minor 

children. In the early morning hours of June 24, 2018, Sutherland left the 
J-S08015-21

- 4 -

residence and pursued Appellant and Maldonado down a nearby alley, where 

Appellant shot Sutherland. When Maldonado returned to the residence four 

hours after the shooting, Maldonado’s minor son1 stated to her, “Papa 

[Sutherland] said he was going to kill you.” 

Appellant argues that this statement was admissible under the excited 

utterance exception to the hearsay rule. While this exception has been 

codified in the Rules of Evidence since 1998, see Pa.R.E. 803(2), our Supreme 

Court has held that the common law definition of an excited utterance remains 

applicable. Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 157 (Pa. 2013). At 

common law, an excited utterance is 

[A] spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been 

suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by 

some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that person has 

just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to 

some phase of that occurrence which he perceived, and this 

declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and 

place as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole 

or in part from his reflective faculties.... Thus, it must be shown 

first, that [the declarant] had witnessed an event sufficiently 

startling and so close in point of time as to render her reflective 

thought processes inoperable and, second, that her declarations 

were a spontaneous reaction to that startling event.

Id. at 157-58. A shooting or assault, for example, can constitute an 

overwhelming or shocking occurrence under the excited utterance rule. 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268, 282 (Pa. 2006) (shooting victim’s 

____________________________________________

1 There is some discrepancy as to the age of Maldonado’s son. Defense 

counsel stated that he was eleven or fourteen years old; the Commonwealth 

stated that he was six years old. 
J-S08015-21

- 5 -

statement identifying defendant as one of the shooters, made less than ten 

minutes after being shot, while victim was bleeding from his gunshot wound 

and awaiting transport to the hospital, as well as second statement to police, 

made approximately thirty minutes later, were admissible as excited 

utterances); Commonwealth v. Lester, 722 A.2d 997, 1002-03 (Pa. 1998) 

(statement of four-year-old girl to police that defendant punched and kicked 

her and killed her mother was admissible as excited utterance). Conversely, 

a “mere argument, [no matter] how intense,” is not an “overpowering 

emotional and shocking experience sufficient to exclude the possibility that 

the statements were the product of premeditation or design.” 

Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545, 554 (Pa. 1976). 

Maldonado’s son’s statement was not an excited utterance because he 

did not experience some overwhelming or shocking occurrence. He did not 

witness the confrontation between Sutherland and Appellant or the shooting. 

Allegedly, he merely heard Sutherland state he was going to kill Maldonado, 

an event similar to a heated argument, id., an incident that was unpleasant 

but not overwhelming or shocking enough to render his thought processes 

inoperable.

In addition, Maldonado’s son made his statement four hours after 

Sutherland’s comment. Thus, it was not so near in time of Sutherland’s 

statement “as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in 

part from his reflective faculties.” Murray, 83 A.3d at 157. In several cases, 
J-S08015-21

- 6 -

courts have found statements by children to be excited utterances even when 

the statement occurs hours after the startling event. In one such case, the 

morning after the defendant beat a four-year-old child and murdered the 

child’s mother, and the child saw the mother’s dead body in the bathtub, the 

child told the police about the incident. Our Supreme Court held that the 

child’s statement was an excited utterance. Lester, 722 A.2d at 1001, 1002-

03. In another murder case, the child heard his mother screaming and told 

neighbors about it the following morning while eating breakfast. Our Supreme 

Court held that the statement was an excited utterance because it was 

unsolicited and because the child spent the lapse in time sleeping, making it 

unlikely that his statement was affected by reflection or outside influences. 

Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75, 96 (Pa. 2004). Here, it is 

possible that Maldonado’s son was close in age to the boy whose statement 

was found admissible in Boczkowski. See n.1, supra. Nevertheless, unlike 

Lester, Maldonado’s son was not himself the victim of a physical attack, and

unlike Boczkowski, there is no evidence that Maldonado’s son was asleep 

during the four-hour interval between Sutherland’s statement and his 

statement to Maldonado. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we 

cannot “exclude the likelihood of [Maldonado’s son’s statement] having 

emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.” Murray, 83 A.3d 

at 157.
J-S08015-21

- 7 -

We further conclude that Maldonado’s son’s statement was not 

admissible as a present sense impression. Pa.R.E. 803(1) defines a present 

sense impression as “a statement describing or explaining an event or 

condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.” The 

truthfulness of a present sense impression “is dependent upon its spontaneity.

It must be certain from the circumstances that the utterance is a reflex 

product of immediate sensual impressions, unaided by retrospective mental 

processes. Restated, the utterance must be instinctive, rather than 

deliberate.” Farquharson, 354 A.2d at 554. In this case, Maldonado’s son’s 

statement was not a “reflex product of immediate sensual impressions, 

unaided by retrospective mental processes,” id., since four hours elapsed 

between Sutherland’s statement and Maldonado’s son’s statement. 

In his second argument, Appellant contends that the court erroneously

precluded Appellant from introducing evidence that Sutherland was drunk and 

was aggressive when drunk, which Appellant maintains would have proved 

that Sutherland was the initial aggressor and that Appellant acted in selfdefense. We disagree, because Appellant was able to present evidence and 

argument concerning Sutherland’s drunkenness on the date in question or his 

aggressiveness when drunk. 

Maldonado testified as follows in response to questioning from defense 

counsel:

Q. Now, while you’ve been with Keith over your years, you’ve seen 

him when he was drunk, correct?
J-S08015-21

- 8 -

A. Yes.

Q. You’ve experienced him when he was drunk?

A. Yes.

Q. You’ve come to experience when he’s sober versus being 

drunk, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the day of the argument with him, he was drunk, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Keith had been aggressive with you before?

A. Yes.

Q. And he even gets more aggressive when he’s drinking or is 

drunk, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he does that to the point where you even told Detective 

Licata that he scares you?

A. Yes.

N.T., 1/7/20, at 63-64. At this point, the Commonwealth asked the court to 

preclude “any further questioning on this” on the ground that it was irrelevant. 

Id. at 64. The court sustained the objection. Id. at 65. Importantly, the 

Commonwealth did not ask the court to strike Maldonado’s testimony prior to 

the objection; nor did the court strike this testimony. 
J-S08015-21

- 9 -

Moreover, during closing argument, defense counsel pointed out, 

without objection, that after the shooting, Maldonado told a police detective 

that Appellant shot Sutherland in self-defense:

[The detective] hears [Maldonado] explain about the aggression 

of [Sutherland], about [Sutherland] being drunk, about going into 

the alleyway, [Sutherland] coming out. At this time, we hear that 

[Sutherland] has a bottle and [Sutherland] lunges, [Sutherland]

attacks, and he’s shot in self-defense.

N.T., 1/9/20, at 303.

Through the foregoing testimony that the court never struck, and 

through counsel’s closing argument, Appellant was able to present his position 

that Sutherland was aggressive when drunk, Sutherland was drunk and 

aggressive at the time of the altercation, and that Sutherland’s aggressiveness 

forced Appellant to shoot him in self-defense. Accordingly, Appellant’s 

argument that he was precluded from presenting evidence on this issue does 

not warrant relief.

Finally, Appellant argues that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. Our role 

is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict 

was against the weight of the evidence. Rather, we are to decide 

if the trial court palpably abused its discretion when ruling on the 

weight claim. When doing so, we keep in mind that the initial 

determination regarding the weight of the evidence was for the 

factfinder. The factfinder was free to believe all, some or none of 

the evidence. Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict 

based on a weight claim unless that verdict was so contrary to the 

evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.
J-S08015-21

- 10 -

Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 736-37 (Pa. Super. 2007). “[A] 

trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion based on a weight of the 

evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” Commonwealth v. 

Sanders, 42 A.3d 325, 331 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Here, the trial court reasoned:

In the instant matter, there was a dispute as to whether or not 

Sutherland was holding a bottle and whether or not he was 

advancing on [Appellant] and Maldonado in a threatening way. 

[Appellant] testified that Sutherland was coming towards him 

holding a bottle. Sutherland testified that he was backing up and 

had his empty hands raised. The jury judged the credibiiity of 

both witnesses and determined that [Appellant] was guilty of 

aggravated assault. We do not find this verdict to be so contrary 

to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice . . . Nor do we 

find Sutherland’s testimony to be so unreliable and/or

contradictory as to make the verdict pure conjecture . . . 

Essentially, [Appellant] is arguing that his statement was more 

truthful than Sutherland’s, but that determination is solely for the 

jury to make. As such, the verdict was not against the weight of 

the evidence.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/20, at 3 (incorporated by reference into Pa.R.A.P. 

1925 opinion at 6). We find this reasoning persuasive, and we conclude that 

the trial court acted within its discretion by denying Appellant’s challenge to 

the weight of the evidence.

For these reasons, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S08015-21

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/12/2021