Court Opinion

ID: 9963582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 19:27:51.542832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.457852
License: Public Domain

J-S05007-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
               v.                         :
                                          :
                                          :
 ZACHARY JOHN SAFLIN                      :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 641 WDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 13, 2023
          In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
           Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002190-2020

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

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.:                FILED: April 25, 2024

      Zachary John Saflin appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by

the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas on January 13, 2023. Saflin

challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm.

      Saflin was charged with Count 1 - criminal attempt – rape by forcible

compulsion, Count 2 - aggravated indecent assault without consent, Count 3

- aggravated indecent assault by forcible compulsion, Count 4 - false

imprisonment, Count 5 - indecent assault by forcible compulsion, and Count

6 - furnishing alcohol to minors.

      Since, when considering an appeal based upon the weight of the

evidence, we must review whether the trial court abused its discretion in

rejecting the contention, we first look at the factual history as summarized by

the trial court:
J-S05007-24

     On May 18, 2020, victim, K.C., threw a birthday party for her
     friend, A.H., located at K.C.’s grandparents’ house in Ligonier, PA.

     K.C. threw the party with the permission of her grandfather.
     Approximately 12 people attended the party, including, D.M.,
     G.P., G.J., M.B., D.H., R.C., A.G., A.H., K.C., and [Saflin]. K.C.
     never met [Saflin], but was familiar with others attending the
     party.

     Some individuals brought tents to stay overnight after the party.
     There were a total of four tents set up. K.C.’s tent slept one
     person. A.H.’s tent was big enough for two people.

     Before the party, A.H., M.B., D.H., and [Saflin] traveled to Sheetz
     in Ligonier to purchase alcohol. A.H. and M.B. gave [Saflin] cash
     to purchase alcohol for them, including Redd’s Wicked and Twisted
     Tea pounders. D.M. also supplied alcohol for the party.

     The party started around 11:30 P.M. or 12:00 A.M. K.C. estimated
     that she drank about four Yuengling beers provided by D.M. After
     that, [Saflin] gave K.C. beers, but K.C. was “dumping them out
     as [Saflin] was giving them to [her]” either on the ground next to
     her or in the woods when she had to use the restroom. K.C.
     explained, “I didn't like the surroundings near the dark, not
     knowing and not picking who was there. My anxiety was
     heightened. I figured I reached my limit. I reached a buzz. I was
     giggly. I thought that was the point to stop.”

     K.C. described [Saflin] as a “shadow” that evening in that
     “everywhere we were, he was kind of, like, right there behind us
     or next to us.” This made K.C. uncomfortable because A.H. invited
     [Saflin] because he and A.H. were “supposed to become a thing.”
     “I felt he was more so like interested in me that night, and I didn’t
     like it.” K.C. was not interested in [Saflin]. K.C. tried to keep her
     distance from [Saflin] by walking away from him or talking to
     other people throughout the evening. When [Saflin] spoke to her,
     K.C. would “keep it short.”

     A.H. confirmed that she and K.C. were drinking. A.H. testified that
     she was not completely intoxicated, but had a few drinks. A.H.
     described K.C. as “just kind of falling around” and “being goofy.”
     However, A.H. stated that K.C.’s behavior was “mainly in front of
     everyone that was there.” A.H. observed that [Saflin] “liked [K.C.]

                                     -2-
J-S05007-24

     throughout the night,” but K.C. did “not really give off any signs
     that she was interested in him.”

     K.C. testified that, later in the evening, A.H. suggested that they
     should have a threesome with [Saflin]. K.C. said “no” and that it
     would not be a good idea because it would ruin their friendship
     and make it awkward between them. A.H. testified that K.C.
     initially agreed to the threesome, but then said “no” later that
     night. A.H. stated, “[t]owards the end of the night, she was alert
     and oriented whenever she knew that she didn’t want to proceed
     with the threesome.”

     After the conversation with A.H., K.C. proceeded to blow out tiki
     torches around the party. To avoid talking to A.H. further about
     the proposed threesome, K.C. testified that she “used her time
     wisely” by blowing the torches out “very slowly.” K.C. purposely
     missed the tiki torches so it would take her longer to blow them
     out. At that point, K.C. estimated it was approximately 45 minutes
     since she had consumed her last drink. K.C. testified that she was
     “stumbling around as to faking being highly intoxicated because I
     was given more than just four beers. Everyone thought I drank
     them.” K.C. testified that she only consumed four drinks.

     A.H. and K.C. got into A.H.’s tent, and [Saflin] eventually followed.
     [Saflin] shut the tent. A.H. and K.C. were lying beside each other.
     [Saflin] began to kiss A.H. While removing A.H.’s pants, [Saflin]
     went over to K.C. However, K.C. said “no.” K.C. stated that she
     turned on to her stomach and had her right arm underneath her
     holding A.H.’s hand really tight. K.C. kept saying that she didn’t
     want to do this, loud enough for both A.H. and [Saflin] to hear.
     Then, things “escalated.” K.C. felt a lot of body pressure on her
     legs and on her back as [Saflin] was laying on both K.C. and A.H.
     K.C. could not see what was happening between [Saflin] and A.H.,
     but heard kissing noises. K.C. tried unzipping the tent multiple
     times, but she felt her arm getting dragged back in. K.C. told
     [Saflin] and A.H. that she had to use the bathroom and that she
     had to throw up to get out of the tent. K.C. was crying and started
     gagging herself to try to get out. When K.C. finally unzipped the
     tent, she got out and walked toward the fire pit.

     A.H.’s testimony was consistent with K.C.’s. A.H. stated that K.C.
     said “no” more than once and grabbed A.H.’s wrist when they were
     inside the tent. A.H. stated that “it was pretty clear [K.C.] did not
     want anything to do with sexual intercourse.” A.H. could not see

                                     -3-
J-S05007-24

     what occurred between [Saflin] and K.C., but said that K.C. began
     to cry and dry heave, which A.H. knew to be a response from K.C.
     when she was upset. A.H. confirmed that K.C. said that she didn’t
     want to do this and didn’t want [Saflin] to touch her.

     K.C. testified that, about two paces from the fireplace, [Saflin]
     picked her up. K.C. screamed “no” and squirmed when [Saflin]
     picked her up. After [Saflin] picked her up, he carried K.C. back
     up the hill and into her single tent. [Saflin] placed K.C. on her
     back. K.C. grabbed the front of her sweatpants and held them up.
     [Saflin] started kissing K.C. He kissed her ear then belly button.
     [Saflin] had all of his body weight on K.C. [Saflin] had his hand
     on K.C.’s buttocks, underneath her sweatpants, then moved his
     hand to the front and penetrated her vagina with his hand. K.C.
     estimated that she said “no” more than 30 times. “I was [ ... ]
     hysterically screaming, crying, ‘no, no, no.’” “I couldn't get
     anything else out of my mouth other than the word ‘no.’” “Then I
     started saying that I had to pee again, I had to go to the
     bathroom. And then he got up off of me. And as soon as he did, I
     got right out of the tent, and I walked up the hill to the left of the
     tent away from the tent and I [saw] A.H.”

     When A.H. saw K.C., A.H. described her as “an emotional wreck.”
     K.C. was crying and dry heaving. K.C. told A.H. that she didn’t
     want [Saflin] to touch her and that [Saflin] needed to leave.

     A.H. went back to her tent and found [Saflin] laying in the tent
     without pants on, and told him that he had to leave because
     whatever he did scared K.C. [Saflin] responded that he didn’t do
     anything. [Saflin] left the premises.

     A.G. and R.C., who were dating at the time of the party, also
     provided testimony about the incident. A.G. had a few sips of
     alcohol throughout the party. R.C. could not drink due to epilepsy.
     A.G. testified that A.H., K.C., and [Saflin] appeared “intoxicated”
     the night of the incident. R.C. testified that K.C. was stumbling a
     little but could keep her own balance. A.G. and R.C. saw [Saflin]
     carry K.C. into one of the tents, but thought he was just helping
     her because she was intoxicated. However, when K.C. and [Saflin]
     were inside the tent, A.G. and R.C. heard K.C. saying “no” and
     “get off of me” up to five times. A.G. and R.C. came out of their
     tent once they heard K.C. say that she was going to get her
     grandparents.

                                     -4-
J-S05007-24

     K.C. went into her grandparents’ house to tell them about the
     incident. K.C. was “hysterical” and “bawling.” “I kept repeating I
     didn't want him to touch me. I kept apologizing to A.H. because I
     [ ... ] ruined her party. So, I was still crying. I was hysterical.”
     K.C.’s grandfather testified that “she was extremely distraught.”
     K.C.’s grandparents called the police and K.C.’s parents. When the
     police arrived, they asked K.C. to go outside to provide a report
     about what happened.

     Shortly after K.C. provided her statement, she went with her
     parents to the hospital. K.C. did not undergo testing by a rape kit
     given the nature of the incident. K.C. testified that she never gave
     consent for [Saflin] to touch her sexually, nor did she want [Saflin]
     to touch her in that manner.

     On cross-examination, K.C. clarified an inconsistency in the police
     report. K.C. testified that she did not tell police that [Saflin]
     carried her into A.H.’s tent and touched her vagina in A.H.’s tent.
     Rather, [Saflin] carried her to her own tent and that this occurred
     in her own tent.

     The incident was investigated by Pennsylvania State Police
     Troopers Robert Politowksi and David Wineland after reviewing a
     report from the Ligonier Police Department. Trooper Politowski
     and Trooper Wineland each provided testimony regarding the
     investigation. Regarding their interview with K.C., Trooper
     Politowski testified that K.C. told him that there was an incident
     where [Saflin] had fondled [K.C.] and penetrated her vagina with
     his finger. K.C. reported to Trooper Politowski that she told
     [Saflin] “no” multiple times. When K.C. was finally able to get
     away from [Saflin], K.C. told her grandparents, who called the
     police.

     Troopers Politowski and Wineland interviewed [Saflin] outside of
     his residence. Politowski testified that [Saflin] explained the night
     was “uneventful,” that he was present, and that he was drinking.
     [Saflin] stated he purchased alcohol, but that he did not provide
     the alcohol to others. [Saflin] reported that K.C. went to the
     hospital for a rape kit. When the troopers asked him to elaborate,
     [Saflin] stated that he, A.H., and K.C. were in a tent when K.C.
     began crying. [Saflin] stated that K.C. came on to him, was very
     intoxicated, and that she was falling over at one point at the party.
     [Saflin] attempted to kiss K.C. in A.H.’s tent and when K.C. left
     that tent upset, he followed her to her tent. [Saflin] admitted that

                                     -5-
J-S05007-24

     he kissed K.C. When the troopers informed [Saflin] that K.C. told
     them something more happened than [Saflin] was describing,
     Politowski testified that [Saflin] admitted to grabbing K.C.'s
     breasts on the outside of her bra and grabbing her buttocks on
     the outside of her pants. Politowski asked [Saflin] why K.C. would
     get a rape kit if they were touched on the outside of their clothes,
     to which [Saflin] admitted to touching her bare vagina, rubbing
     her clitoris, and penetrating her vagina with his finger. Politowksi
     testified that [Saflin] said K.C. said “no” approximately two to
     three times. Politowski asked [Saflin] whether [Saflin] decided
     that he was going to attempt to have sex with K.C. even though
     she told him “no” multiple times, [Saflin] said “yes.” Additionally,
     [Saflin] said that he continued to try to attempt to have sex with
     K.C. for approximately two minutes after she said “no.” Politowski
     took notes in the beginning of the interview, then when
     questioning [Saflin], he stopped writing to make sure he was fully
     paying attention. However, Politowski made sure his notes were
     accurate and repeated the information back to [Saflin]. [Saflin]
     acknowledged what he told the officers was true.

     On cross-examination, Defense Counsel questioned Trooper
     Politowski regarding inconsistencies in the police report and live
     testimony. When asked if he had a clear recollection of [the]
     interview with [Saflin], Politowski said, “I have a recollection of
     the interview, the admissions, and the confession. But the
     question I was answering regarding what I specifically told [Saflin]
     he was being accused of, I don’t remember verbatim what I told
     him.” “I obviously told him that it was of a sexual nature, and then
     [the] interview continued.” Even with inconsistencies presented,
     Politowski described the witness’ testimony and his report as
     “largely consistent,” including K.C. repeatedly saying “no,” crying,
     gagging, and that [Saflin] penetrated K.C.’s vagina with his finger.

     Trooper Wineland testified that he recalled Politowski asking
     [Saflin] if he intended to have sex with K.C. when he went into
     her tent, and that [Saflin] responded that he did. At that point in
     the interview, [Saflin] already said that K.C. said “no” and that it
     was against her will, so Wineland asked how long [Saflin]
     continued to sexually assault K.C. after she said “no,” to which
     [Saflin] said “two minutes.” On cross examination, Defense
     Counsel stated this was inconsistent with their report, which
     stated that [Saflin] said that he continued to attempt to have sex
     with the victim for approximately two minutes after the victim said
     “no.” Even without this part of the testimony, Wineland stated that

                                    -6-
J-S05007-24

      [Saflin] made admissions that K.C. had said “no” two or three
      times.

      Neither trooper preserved their notes from the interviews. They
      did not have [Saflin] or other witnesses give written or recorded
      statements. Politowski stated that he and Wineland completed
      their report within a week after the interviews. Troopers did not
      attempt to contact Sheetz for further investigation tying [Saflin]
      to the purchase of alcohol.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/23, at 3-9 (citations omitted).

      On October 20, 2022, following a three-day trial, a jury acquitted Saflin

of Count 1 and found Saflin guilty of Counts 2 through 6. The trial court

sentenced Saflin to an aggregate term of twenty-two to forty-four months’

incarceration followed by five years’ probation.

      Saflin filed a timely post-sentence motion, in which he challenged the

weight of the evidence supporting his convictions. At the direction of the trial

court, Saflin filed a brief in support of his motion, in which he argued K.C.’s

testimony “was discordant, inconsistent, and at times contradictory.” Brief in

Support of Post-Sentence Motions, 2/21/23, at 10. Further, Saflin challenged

the quality of the investigation conducted by the Pennsylvania State Police.

See id. at 12-14.

      On appeal, Saflin argues the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the

evidence. A challenge to the weight of the evidence “concedes that the

evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict but seeks a new trial on the ground

that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a

guilty verdict shocks one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v. Orie, 88

                                      -7-
J-S05007-24

A.3d 983, 1015 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). A verdict is said to be

contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice when “the

figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or when “the jury’s verdict, at the

time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath, temporarily, and

causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly shocking to the

judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 581 (Pa.

Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

      When the challenge to the weight of the evidence is predicated on
      the credibility of trial testimony, our review of the trial court’s
      decision is extremely limited. Generally, unless the evidence is so
      unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based
      thereon pure conjecture, these types of claims are not cognizable
      on appellate review. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on
      the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider
      the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the
      weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to
      whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on
      the weight claim.

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal

quotes and citations omitted).

      Saflin argues his convictions are against the weight of the evidence due

to the inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable testimony given by the

Commonwealth’s witnesses. Specifically, Saflin challenges the testimony of

the victim and the investigating officers.

      Saflin essentially asks us to reassess the credibility of K.C. and the

investigating officers and to reweigh the evidence presented at trial. However,

even “in instances where there is conflicting testimony, it is for the jury to

                                      -8-
J-S05007-24

determine the weight to be given the testimony. The credibility of a witness is

a question for the fact-finder.” Commonwealth v. Hall, 830 A.2d 537, 542

(Pa. 2003) (citation omitted). Upon review, we conclude the evidence more

than adequately supports the trial court’s determination that the verdict was

not so contrary to the evidence as to shock its conscience.

      The jury, sitting as the finder of fact, chose to believe the evidence

presented by the Commonwealth and the logical inferences derived therefrom,

as was its right. The jury obviously gave serious consideration to the trial

evidence and the arguments of counsel, as evidenced by its decision to find

Saflin not guilty of the first count but guilty on the remaining charges. In

addressing Saflin’s challenge to the weight of the evidence the trial court

concluded the jury’s findings were not so contrary to the evidence as to shock

one’s sense of justice. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/23, at 17.

      It was within the province of the jury as factfinder to resolve all issues

of credibility, resolve any conflicts in evidence, make reasonable inferences

from the evidence, believe all, none, or some of the evidence, and ultimately

find Saflin guilty. The jury weighed the evidence, credited K.C.’s testimony,

and concluded Saflin committed the crimes charged in Counts 2 through 6.

Following our careful and close review of the trial evidence, we find that the

trial court did not err in concluding the jury’s verdict was not so contrary to

the evidence so as to shock one’s sense of justice. While the court agreed that

there were inconsistencies in the testimony at trial, it properly concluded that

                                     -9-
J-S05007-24

the issue was one of credibility for the jury to resolve, and ultimately none of

the inconsistencies rose to the level of being shocking to one’s sense of justice.

See Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/23, at 14. Accordingly, we conclude the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in determining Saflin’s weight claim lacks

merit.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

4/25/2024

                                     - 10 -