Opinion ID: 2319241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of Evidence of the Levato and Newcomer Homicides

Text: Appellant next argues the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce testimony concerning the graphic details of the Levato and Newcomer homicides in violation of its pretrial ruling. See Appellant's Brief at 35 (Argument V). In recognition of the Commonwealth's agreement not to use evidence of those murders as aggravating circumstances in the instant case, the trial court ruled the Commonwealth was entitled to present evidence of Appellant's prior convictions only to suggest other or additional motives for his good prison record and to rebut his non-violent character testimony. N.T. Trial, 7/5/05-7/26/05, at 414. Appellant claims that, over defense counsel's objection and in contravention of the trial court's ruling specifically limiting the Commonwealth to the introduction of conviction, the name of the victim and the date of the offense, Appellant's Brief at 35, the Commonwealth introduced the fact that three gunshot wounds to the head with a .22 caliber gun had caused the death [of Mr. Levato] and that Mr. Levato was found against a tree in a wooded area. In the Newcomer homicide, information was improperly educed that a .22 caliber gun was used and the location of the homicide. Id. at 36. A review of the trial transcript reveals that, at least initially, the trial court instructed the prosecution that it could introduce evidence as to the date of the conviction, the date of the crime, and the name of the victim, but not additional facts or circumstances that would essentially create an aggravating circumstance. N.T. Trial, 7/5/05-7/26/05, at 415. The trial court specifically stated that the prosecution could not introduce evidence as to the manner of death. Id. at 421. Subsequent to this ruling, however, Trooper Richard E. Dickey, II, who was an investigating officer with regard to the Newcomer and Levato homicides, and who filed the criminal complaint against Appellant, took the stand. The prosecutor provided Trooper Dickey with copies of the criminal complaint; the criminal information; and the sentencing order, and requested the documents be admitted into evidence; defense counsel did not object. Id. at 1015. The following exchange between the prosecutor and Trooper Dickey then occurred: Q. Regarding Peter Levato, you were one of the investigators in that case? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was the cause of his death? A. Three gunshot wounds. Two to the head and one to the chest area I believe. Q. And when was the homicide? A. That occurred sometime between December 27th to December 29th. Q. What year? A. Of 1979. Q. And does the Information that was filed, does it indicate the weapon that was used? A. Yes, it does. Q. What is that? A. It's a .22 caliber gun. Q. And he pled guilty to third degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder? A. Yes. Q. Where did the murder occur? Well, let me ask you this. Where was Mr. Levato's body found? A. It was found up against a tree in a wooded area along side Loyalhanna Creek just north of the crest of the Loyalhanna Dam in Loyalhanna Township, Westmoreland County. Id. at 1016-17. A few moments after this exchange, defense counsel requested a sidebar and lodged an objection with respect to Trooper Dickey's testimony as to the type of gun used, and the number and location of gunshots to the victim. The trial court noted, but overruled, the objection, concluding the trooper could testify to whatever details were contained in the criminal complaint or criminal information. Trooper Dickey then proceeded to testify that, according to the criminal information, Marlene Newcomer was killed along U.S. Route 22 with a .22 caliber gun. Id. at 1020. No additional objection was lodged by defense counsel following this testimony. Although Appellant is correct in his argument that the trial court ultimately allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that exceeded the scope of its pre-trial ruling, essentially overruling sub silentio its prior holding, Appellant fails to establish that he is entitled to relief on this basis. As the testimony quoted above reveals, the trial court determined that it would allow the prosecution to introduce evidence which was contained in the criminal complaint and/or criminal information, and Appellant does not explain why this was improper. Indeed, as previously stated, once Appellant introduced evidence of his good character in support of mitigating circumstances, the prosecution was entitled to introduce evidence of the other homicides to rebut such character evidence. Moreover, we do not agree with Appellant's characterization of the evidence as graphic, and note that the trial court specifically instructed the jury as follows: Now, you heard evidence that Michael Travaglia pled guilty and was convicted of third degree murder and criminal conspiracy in the deaths of Peter Levato and Marlene Newcomer. By express agreement of the Commonwealth and the defense at the time of those convictions, the evidence of those convictions would not be used as an aggravating circumstance or circumstances. The sole purpose for which you may consider the evidence of these convictions is to rebut evidence of good character offered on behalf of the defendant. N.T. Trial, 7/5/05-7/26/05, at 1166-67. We reiterate that a jury is presumed to follow a trial court's instructions, see Smith, supra , and Appellant has failed to establish that it failed to do so in this case. Accordingly, he is not entitled to relief.