Court Opinion

ID: 9382726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 16:11:31.675319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.239713
License: Public Domain

J-S39016-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 FRED LARRY, JR.                          :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 211 MDA 2022

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 7, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-40-CR-0004443-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                     FILED: MARCH 28, 2023

      Appellant, Fred Larry, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence of six

to twelve years of incarceration, imposed following his convictions for sexual

assault and simple assault. Appellant raises two issues on appeal, both of

which involve the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. We affirm.

      The trial court set forth a detailed summary of the evidence presented

at Appellant’s jury trial in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, which we adopt

herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/14/22, at 2-6. As a brief summary,

Victim testified that during the early morning hours of August 17, 2019, she

was walking downtown when she met “a black kid” who told her he had a

“hard on.” Id. at 3. The male asked her if he could “put it in her ‘front door’

and her ‘back door’” but Victim told him no. Id. Appellant then grabbed her

and said he would give her $60 for sex. Victim again refused, at which time
J-S39016-22

the male pulled her pants down, slapped her, and put his penis inside her.

Victim screamed for help.

       Officer Kevin Walkowiak of the Wilkes University Police Department was

on foot patrol with Sergeant Matthew Evans and heard a female voice coming

from an area behind a trash compactor.           He shined a flashlight and saw

Appellant and Victim. Victim appeared to be afraid. Appellant told the officers,

“Everything’s okay. She’s my wife. This is my wife.” Id. at 5 (quoting trial

transcript). The two officers separated the individuals and requested backup

from the Wilkes-Barre Police Department. Officer James Verdekal responded

and testified that he observed a visible scratch on Victim’s neck, dried blood

near her mouth, and grass clippings stuck to her chest. Id. at 6. Victim was

transported to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, where Nurse Nicole Ohanlon

performed a sexual assault examination.          While Victim refused an internal

examination, Nurse Ohanlon observed abrasions on Victim’s back, arms, inner

thighs, and buttocks. Id. at 10.

       Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on March 23, 2021. At the close of

the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Appellant moved for judgment of acquittal

on all counts based on Victim’s failure to identify Appellant. The trial court

denied the motion, and the jury returned guilty verdicts at the counts of sexual

assault and simple assault.1 On September 17, 2021, the trial court imposed

____________________________________________

1Appellant was also charged with one count of rape, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(1),
and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), 18 Pa.C.S. §
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-S39016-22

the aforementioned sentence, and Appellant filed a timely post-sentence

motion. The trial court denied the motion, and, following Appellant’s timely

notice of appeal, it ordered Appellant to file a concise statement in accordance

with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant did so, and the trial court filed its opinion

in response. Appellant raises two claims on appeal:

       I. Whether the Commonwealth submitted sufficient evidence of
       record to convict … Appellant of sexual assault and simple assault.

       II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
       error of law in failing to grant defense counsel’s Motion for
       Acquittal when the Commonwealth failed to have [V]ictim identify
       … Appellant at trial.

Appellant’s Brief at 1.

       Appellant’s    claims    are    related.   He   first   contends   that   the

Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support the convictions

for sexual assault and simple assault because Victim only described the

assailant as “a black kid” and she “vaguely described that this individual

attempted to put his [penis] in her ‘middle door’ and ‘back door.’” Id. at 6.

Appellant argues that Victim did not identify being assaulted by anyone to any

of the police officers or medical personnel that she encountered that evening.

He describes the “only relevant statement” in the case as coming from

Appellant via Victim’s testimony, i.e., the offer of $60 for sex. Id. Appellant

____________________________________________

3123(a)(1). The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to rape and
one of the IDSI counts, and the court declared a mistrial as to those charges.
It then granted a motion for judgment of acquittal at the remaining count of
IDSI. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to nolle pros the
other two counts. See TCO at 1.

                                           -3-
J-S39016-22

also emphasizes that Victim refused the internal examination.             In sum,

Appellant claims that there “is simply no credible evidence to support the

Commonwealth’s theory that … Appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with

the alleged [V]ictim without her consent, if in fact the incident occurred at all.”

Id. at 7.   According to Appellant, the Commonwealth likewise offered “no

tangible evidence that [Victim] suffered actual bodily injury” as required to

sustain a conviction for simple assault. Id.

      The second claim is largely repetitive of the first. Appellant moved for

judgment of acquittal after the Commonwealth rested on the basis that

Victim’s reference to “a black kid” failed to sufficiently identify Appellant as

the perpetrator.

      We have carefully examined the briefs, applicable law, and the 18-page

trial court opinion authored by the Honorable Joseph F. Sklarosky, Jr. of the

Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. We conclude that Judge Sklarosky

has cogently and thoroughly disposed of Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt

his opinion as our own.      The trial court opinion sets forth the applicable

principles of law for examining the sufficiency of the evidence and explains

why Appellant’s challenges fail. While Appellant’s arguments concerning the

lack of detail from Victim beyond describing her assailant as “a black kid” are

well-taken, the trial judge opined that, based on his observations of her

testimony, Victim had “a developmental disability” of some type. Id. at 2

n.10. The trial court opinion correctly explains that the Commonwealth may

meet its burden through circumstantial evidence, and Victim was clear that

                                       -4-
J-S39016-22

the “‘black kid’ she encountered engaged in sexual intercourse with her

without her consent.”     Id. at 10 (quoting trial transcript).   As a matter of

circumstantial proof, we agree with the trial court that this testimony, when

paired with the testimony of two police officers who responded to a female

voice and saw Appellant emerge from behind a trash compactor, plainly

suffices to establish that the “black kid” referenced in Victim’s testimony was

Appellant, and that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence

regarding Appellant’s forcibly penetrating Victim with his penis.     Moreover,

several witnesses offered direct testimony concerning Victim’s facial injuries

for purposes of establishing bodily injury as required for simple assault.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/28/2023

                                      -5-