Opinion ID: 1941054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Error in Finding Appellant Guilty of Murder

Text: Appellant argues his first two issues together, related to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence and jury error in finding him guilty of first-degree murder. Because the two issues are set forth as sufficiency and weight claims, they will be addressed together as such. [2] Appellant claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that it is clear that the jury was confused and could not have found him guilty of first-degree murder based upon what he terms the speculative and unreliable evidence presented, which he claims was inconsistent and contradicted by the physical and testimonial evidence. He further argues that the evidence supports the proposition that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Appellant bases this argument on the testimony of his uncle, Donald VanDivner, who testified that he and appellant drank beer at a bar from approximately 11 a.m. until 4 p.m. on the day of the murder, and that of his brother, Albert VanDivner, who also testified to the imbibing, adding that the men began the day with an eight ball [3] of crack cocaine and that they occasionally left the bar to smoke the crack cocaine. Due to his alleged intoxication, appellant argues, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first-degree murder because the use of intoxicants negates the specific intent required for a conviction. In addition, appellant argues that he was incapable of forming the required specific intent due to his diminished capacity. He points to the testimony of a defense witness, psychologist Adam Sedlock, who stated that appellant's overall level of function is in the mild range of mental retardation and that he has organic functional problems with the frontal lobe of his brain, which controls his ability to think before he speaks or acts. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth did not refute his diminished capacity claim; therefore, he posits, the jury could not have found that he was capable of forming the requisite specific intent. The Commonwealth responds that the evidence demonstrated that there were several eyewitnesses to the murder. Appellant shot one witness, Billy Cable in the neck, Jessica Cable watched as appellant shot her mother, appellant pointed his gun at the head of a third witness, Larry Newman, and a driver passing by on the street witnessed appellant shooting Michelle Cable in the head. The Commonwealth argues that the jury heard testimony that appellant had consumed alcohol and crack cocaine prior to the shooting but chose not to reduce the verdict, noting that the jury may disregard all, part or some of the evidence. Further, the Commonwealth claims that it established that appellant possessed specific intent to kill in that, while armed with a handgun, he grabbed Michelle by the hair and shot her in the head, thereby using a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body. In its Opinion in Support of Jury Verdict and Sentence, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to support the first-degree murder conviction in that all of the elements of first-degree murder were met. According to the trial court, the evidence established that: (1) two eyewitnesses, Jessica Cable and the driver passing by, testified that appellant approached Michelle, grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head with a handgun; (2) Dr. Wecht testified that Michelle died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head and that the manner of death was homicide; (3) the bullet recovered from Michelle's head was fired from the Jennings J22 handgun found in appellant's possession at the time he was apprehended; (4) just prior to shooting Michelle, appellant stated that he would kill her and then, after shooting her, he said, there you bitch, I said I was going to kill you; and (5) Dr. Wecht testified that the only gunshot wound Michelle suffered was to her head and that the head is a vital part of the body. The court found that the jury could infer specific intent from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of Michelle's body. When reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner to determine if the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom are sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 588 Pa. 151, 903 A.2d 1139, 1146 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1344, 127 S.Ct. 2030, 167 L.Ed.2d 772 (2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Bridges, 563 Pa. 1, 757 A.2d 859, 864 (2000), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1102, 122 S.Ct. 2306, 152 L.Ed.2d 1061 (2002)). To sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove that: (1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the person accused is responsible for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with specific intent to kill. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d); Edwards, 903 A.2d at 1146. Specific intent may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim's body. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 565 Pa. 289, 773 A.2d 131, 135 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 955, 122 S.Ct. 1360, 152 L.Ed.2d 355 (2002). The trial evidence overwhelmingly established that appellant killed Michelle Cable and it was amply sufficient to prove that he acted with a specific intent to kill. Four separate eyewitnesses to the murder testified that appellant shot Michelle in the head with a handgun. Upon apprehension, appellant himself freely admitted to police that he had killed Michelle. Dr. Wecht testified that Michelle's manner of death was homicide, caused by the gunshot wound to her head. Specific intent is also supported by the very fact that appellant went to Michelle's home with a loaded handgun, his contemporaneous statement that he had told Michelle he would kill her, and the fact that he promptly followed through on this threat. Finally, the jury properly could infer specific intent from appellant's use of a handgun upon Michelle's head. Appellant nevertheless claims that his voluntary intoxication and/or diminished capacity negated specific intent. Whether a defendant has established that his faculties and sensibilities were so overwhelmed with drugs so that he could not form the specific intent to kill is a question of fact solely within the province of the jury, who is free to believe any, all, or none of the testimony regarding intoxication. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 580 Pa. 403, 861 A.2d 898, 908 (2004), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1041, 126 S.Ct. 1617, 164 L.Ed.2d 336 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 475 A.2d 714, 720 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963, 105 S.Ct. 361, 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984)). Similarly, the defense of diminished capacity is a matter for a jury to believe or disbelieve as it sees fit. Commonwealth v. Terry, 513 Pa. 381, 521 A.2d 398, 412 (1987), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 920, 107 S.Ct. 3198, 96 L.Ed.2d 685 (1987) (overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Frey, 520 Pa. 338, 554 A.2d 27 (1989)). Thus, appellant's jury was not obligated to believe his claims of intoxication or diminished capacity, and apparently it did not do so. The evidence presented as to the events leading to and the manner in which the murder of Michelle Cable occurred is not diminished by appellant's claims of voluntary intoxication or diminished capacity, at least for the purpose of sufficiency review. Indeed, appellant's own statement to police shortly after the murder that he killed Michelle and recognized that this case was a death penalty case corroborates his full awareness of what he had done. Accordingly, the evidence clearly was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for first-degree murder. As to the weight of the evidence, appellant argues that the testimony the Commonwealth presented was inconsistent and contradicted by the physical evidence. He further alleges that the Commonwealth's evidence was of such a speculative and unreliable nature that there could be no reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. In his intertwined arguments on weight and sufficiency, appellant points to the testimony of defense witnesses that he was intoxicated on the day of the murder and argues that the use of intoxicants negates the specific intent required for a first-degree murder conviction. Further, he contends that the evidence established his diminished capacity through the testimony of Adam Sedlock. The Commonwealth counters that it is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence produced, and the jury is free to believe all, part of none of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Tate, 485 Pa. 180, 401 A.2d 353 (1979). The Commonwealth asserts that the fact that appellant introduced evidence of his intoxication and diminished capacity does not require the jury to credit the testimony. It is apparent from the verdict, the Commonwealth argues, that the jury did not believe appellant's defense testimony. Further, the Commonwealth states that appellant failed to elaborate on his claim that the Commonwealth's evidence was speculative and unreliable. The trial court noted that the determination of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court and that a mere conflict in the testimony does not require a new trial. The court outlined the evidence establishing that several witnesses observed appellant shooting Michelle in the head and found that the conviction for first-degree murder was not against the weight of the evidence. A verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 928 A.2d 1025, 1036 (2007). As the trial court noted, a weight of the evidence claim is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. It is the province of the jury to assess the 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. Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d at 652-53 (citing Edwards, 903 A.2d at 1148, and Armbruster v. Horowitz, 572 Pa. 1, 813 A.2d 698, 703 (2002)). This Court's function on review is to determine whether, based upon a review of the record, the trial court abused its discretion rather than to consider the underlying question of weight of the evidence. Id. Here, appellant has failed to fully develop this claim in terms of the governing law. He points to no specific conflicting testimony nor to any testimony that was speculative or unreliable. Rather, he merely sets forth the defense testimony of intoxication and diminished capacity. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting this claim. The testimony overwhelmingly established that appellant committed the killing, leaving it for the jury to determine the disputed question of whether he possessed the requisite specific intent for first-degree murder. As the Commonwealth argues, the jury was free to believe all, part or none of the defense testimony. Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004). Apparently, the jury disbelieved the testimony from appellant's relatives regarding his alleged intoxication and the testimony of his psychologist that he suffers from diminished capacity, which is entirely within the jury's authority as the trier of fact. Or, even if the jury credited the defense testimony in whole or in part, it could still conclude that the objective circumstances, including appellant's statements and admissions, proved specific intent to kill. The trial court was in the best position to assess whether this was one of those rare circumstances where a verdict based on sufficient evidence was nevertheless contrary to the weight of the evidence. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and thus, this claim merits no relief.