Court Opinion

ID: 9370721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 17:08:33.582766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.244876
License: Public Domain

J-S45012-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 KAREEM GREEN                           :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 698 EDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-39-CR-0000101-2021

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
 KAREEM GREEN                           :
                                        :
                   Appellant            :   No. 699 EDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 2, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-39-CR-0000103-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                      FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2023

     Appellant, Kareem Green, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on December 2, 2021, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s

post-sentence motion on February 14, 2022. We affirm.

     The trial court thoroughly summarized the underlying facts of this case:

       [The Commonwealth charged Appellant with committing
       escape, aggravated and simple assault against T.J., and
J-S45012-22

          aggravated and simple assault against J.U.1 During the
          ensuing jury trial, the Commonwealth demonstrated that
          Appellant] repeatedly stabbed [T.J.], who was the mother of
          his children, as she walked on Seventh Street in the City of
          Allentown. He initially punched her in the face, and then
          stabbed her. He also stabbed [J.U.].

          [Appellant], at the time of the attack, had failed to return to
          the Lehigh County Community Corrections Center
          (hereinafter work release), where he was serving simple
          assault sentences for previously attacking [T.J. Appellant]
          was permitted to go to the hospital because he was
          complaining of chest pains, but instead[] tracked[] down
          [T.J.] and stabbed her. He was not apprehended until almost
          six (6) months after his escape.

                                           ...

          [Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine,
          where it sought permission to introduce the following
          evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts at trial: 1) evidence
          that, on August 5, 2018, Appellant pleaded guilty to two
          counts of simple assault against T.J. and 2) evidence that, in
          January 2020, Appellant violated a no-contact order and his
          work release by entering T.J.’s apartment through a
          third-floor window and “confront[ing] her as to whether she
          was dating anyone.” Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine,
          8/3/21, at 1-3. Appellant did not file a written response to
          the Commonwealth’s motion. Further, although the trial
          court held a hearing on the motion, Appellant did not include
          a transcript of the hearing in the certified record. On
          September 15, 2021, the trial court granted the
          Commonwealth’s motion in limine.          Trial Court Order,
          9/15/21, at 1.]

          [During trial, the Commonwealth introduced the following
          evidence.]

          On January 26, 2020, after midnight, [T.J.] and [J.U.] were
          returning to [T.J.’s] apartment after visiting a nearby
____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5121(a), 2702(a)(1), and 2701(a)(1), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S45012-22

       7-Eleven when [A]ppellant ran towards them. [A]ppellant
       and [J.U.] squared off. [A]ppellant stabbed [J.U.], who then
       ran away, and [A]ppellant turned his attention to [T.J.].

       He punched [T.J.], called her a "dumb bitch," and then
       stabbed her in her stomach and collar. Doctor Rovinder
       Sandhu, a general trauma surgeon and surgical critical care
       doctor, treated [T.J.]. She had two stab wounds in her right
       arm, and one stab wound to the right side of her belly. [T.J.]
       was considered Code Omega, which meant upon her arrival
       at the hospital, she went directly to the operating room. The
       right side of [T.J.’s] colon was removed, "basically the part
       that includes the appendix to the right side. You basically
       remove about a foot of the right colon." He described the
       penetration of the knife as "quite deep." Without being
       treated quickly, her injuries were life threatening.

       [T.J.] remained at the hospital for "less than three weeks,"
       and upon release, suffered some complications from the
       stabbing. Photographs of her injuries were introduced into
       evidence.

       The identification of [A]ppellant as the person who stabbed
       [T.J.] was confirmed by her testimony.          Additionally,
       surveillance videos were introduced into evidence which
       confirmed the attack.         [T.J.’s] testimony was also
       corroborated with still images from the video, which she
       explained showed [A]ppellant stabbing her.

       At the time of the incident, by happenstance, Evelyn Mota
       was seated in her car waiting to pick up her kids when the
       stabbing unfolded in front of her. [She testified that she]
       "could see everything." [As she testified, s]he observed a
       person running towards two people and "surprised them. He
       just came out of nowhere and started stabbing the guy, and
       the guy ran away. He ran away and left the girl there. She
       was saying no, trying to get in front of him to stop with the
       other guy. And that's when he ran away, and he started
       stabbing her." Ms. Mota then called 9-1-1.

       Officer Christopher Matthews, in the aftermath of the
       stabbings, responded to St. Luke's hospital to follow[] up on
       a report of a walk-in stabbing victim. [J.U.], who did not
       testify at trial, was observed by Officer Matthews with a

                                   -3-
J-S45012-22

        laceration across his right eye.     By stipulation, [J.U.’s]
        medical records were introduced and disclosed that he also
        sustained a "fracture of his medial orbital wall, right side,
        closed fracture," which required surgery.

        On the day after the stabbing, Detective Cherie Lebert
        secured an arrest warrant for [A]ppellant. It was not served
        that day because [A]ppellant fled to Florida. He was not
        arrested until July 16, 2020, a little less than six [] months
        after the stabbing. Detective Lebert received information
        that [A]ppellant had returned to the local area, and after
        Detective Lebert and another detective set up surveillance,
        [A]ppellant was taken into custody as he exited a family
        member's residence.

        [A]ppellant testified and conceded he failed to return to the
        work release quarters, but instead went to his brother's
        residence and drove off with his Chevrolet Impala. He then
        drove to the location where [T.J.] lived[] and saw her walking
        on the street. He also saw [J.U.], and the two of them began
        "clutching." He claimed to have seen [J.U.] reaching toward
        his waist[] and observed a "handle." The two, in [A]ppellant's
        words, then began "tussling." [A]ppellant claimed that [J.U.]
        cut him, and in return, [A]ppellant claimed that he "bit" [J.U.]
        in the face. Appellant's version of events was that he then
        pulled out a knife from his pocket and "just started swinging,"
        striking [J.U.]. He then felt somebody coming up from his
        left side, and again started swinging the knife. He never
        admitted that he stabbed [T.J.], but admitted that he saw her
        lying on the ground. He did not render aid, did not call 9-1-1,
        nor did he do anything to assist [T.J.]. Instead, he went to
        Florida — because he knew he "ran from work release . . .
        and stabbed two people." The stabbing of [T.J.], from
        [A]ppellant's perspective, was an accident, and the stabbing
        of [J.U.] was self-defense.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/7/22, at 3-6 (citations and footnotes omitted).

      The jury found Appellant guilty of all charged crimes and, on December

2, 2021, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of

13 ½ to 27 years in prison for his convictions.        Following the denial of

                                     -4-
J-S45012-22

Appellant’s post-trial motion, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant raises one claim on appeal:

          Did the trial court err in permitting the testimony regarding
          [Appellant’s] history of domestic abuse or convictions for
          domestic [violence] based on the likely prejudicial effect
          occurring in the prosecution of [Appellant] for a new assault
          on [T.J.]?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

      Here, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine, where it sought to

introduce evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts against T.J. As noted above,

Appellant did not file a written response to the Commonwealth’s motion in

limine and, on appeal, Appellant did not include a transcript of the hearing on

the Commonwealth’s motion. Thus, we have no way of determining whether,

or upon what grounds, Appellant objected to the admission of the contested

evidence. Appellant’s claim on appeal is, therefore, waived. See Pa.R.A.P.

302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised

for the first time on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Minerd, 753 A.2d 225, 229

(Pa. 2000) (“an appellate court may reverse a trial court's ruling regarding

the admissibility of evidence only upon a showing that the trial court abused

its discretion . . . [and] our scope of review is limited to an examination of the

stated reason”); Commonwealth v. Gillen, 798 A.2d 225, 229 (Pa. Super.

2002) (holding that it is an appellant’s responsibility to order all transcripts

necessary for review and that a failure to do so constitutes waiver of the

issue).

                                      -5-
J-S45012-22

      In the alternative, we conclude that, even if Appellant had not waived

the claim on appeal, Appellant’s claim fails on the merits.

      “We review an evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Yale, 249 A.3d 1001, 1007 (Pa. 2021). As our Supreme

Court has explained:

        the term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
        wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion,
        within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
        purpose of giving effect to the will of the trial judge. An
        appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion based on
        a mere error of judgment, but rather where the trial court
        has reached a conclusion which overrides or misapplies the
        law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly
        unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or
        ill-will.

Id. at 1007-1008 (citations, corrections, and some quotation marks omitted).

      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), pertaining to prior bad acts

evidence, provides, in pertinent part:

        (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

            (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong,
            or act is not admissible to prove a person's character in
            order to show that on a particular occasion the person
            acted in accordance with the character.

            (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for
            another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity,
            intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
            mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this
            evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the
            evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

            (3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the
            prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in
            advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair

                                     -6-
J-S45012-22

           opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses
           pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific
           nature, permitted use, and reasoning for the use of any
           such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial.

Pa.R.E. 404(b).

     This Court has explained:

        Evidence of a defendant's distinct crimes are not generally
        admissible against a defendant solely to show his bad
        character or his propensity for committing criminal acts, as
        proof of the commission of one offense is not generally proof
        of the commission of another. However, this general
        proscription against admission of a defendant's distinct bad
        acts is subject to numerous exceptions if the evidence is
        relevant for some legitimate evidentiary reason and not
        merely to prejudice the defendant by showing him to be a
        person of bad character.

        Exceptions that have been recognized as legitimate bases for
        admitting evidence of a defendant's distinct crimes include,
        but are not limited to:

           (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or
           accident; (4) a common scheme, plan or design such that
           proof of one crime naturally tends to prove the others;
           (5) to establish the identity of the accused where there is
           such a logical connection between the crimes that proof
           of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the
           person who committed the other; (6) to impeach the
           credibility of a defendant who testifies in his trial; (7)
           situations where defendant's prior criminal history had
           been used by him to threaten or intimidate the victim; (8)
           situations where the distinct crimes were part of a chain
           or sequence of events which formed the history of the
           case and were part of its natural development
           (sometimes called “res gestae” exception).

        Additional exceptions are recognized when the probative
        value of the evidence outweighs the potential prejudice to the
        trier of fact.

                                    -7-
J-S45012-22

Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47, 54-55 (Pa. Super. 2017) (some

citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

      On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it admitted

evidence of his prior bad acts toward T.J., as the evidence was “highly

prejudicial and contradicted the defense presented that the harm to her was

done accidentally rather than intentionally.”   Appellant’s Brief at 10.   This

claim fails. To be sure, Appellant’s entire claim on appeal is that the evidence

of his prior bad acts toward T.J. was too prejudicial, as the evidence undercut

his defense “that the harm to her was done accidentally rather than

intentionally.” Id. However, as Rule 404(b)(2) makes clear, a permissible

use of prior bad act evidence is to prove “absence of mistake, or lack of

accident.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). Therefore, evidence that Appellant committed

simple assault against T.J. and then violated a no-contact order and his work

release by entering T.J.’s apartment through a third-floor window and

“confront[ing] her as to whether she was dating anyone” was indeed

admissible to prove that, on January 26, 2020, Appellant did not “accidentally”

stab T.J.    See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).        Appellant’s claim on appeal thus

immediately fails.

      Further, we note that the case at bar is similar to Commonwealth v.

Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009).         In Sherwood, the defendant was

charged with first-degree murder for the beating death of his four-year-old

stepdaughter. Id. at 486. The Commonwealth offered into evidence prior

instances in which the defendant beat the victim. Id. at 497. Our Supreme

                                     -8-
J-S45012-22

Court held that such evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b). Id.

at 497. Specifically, our Supreme Court held that prior bad acts evidence is

admissible when the bad acts were critical to understanding the history of

events related to the crime. Id. Applying that rule, our Supreme Court held

that the prior beatings were critical to understanding that the killing of the

victim was not an accident or mistake and that the defendant possessed the

requisite mens rea for first-degree murder. See id.

      The same is true in the case at bar. Appellant assaulted T.J. in 2018

and then, shortly before he committed the crime at issue, Appellant violated

a no-contact order and his work release by sneaking into T.J.’s apartment and

“confront[ing] her as to whether she was dating anyone.” As explained above,

this evidence is admissible to prove that Appellant did not “accidentally” stab

T.J. on January 26, 2020. Moreover, the evidence is admissible to explain the

history of events related to this crime and Appellant’s jealous motive for

attacking T.J. and J.U. on the date in question. Appellant’s claim on appeal

thus fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/14/2023

                                     -9-