Court Opinion

ID: 9751171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:09:57.477961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:55.131951
License: Public Domain

J-S19010-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 MICHAEL JAMES FLORY                      :
                                          :
                   Appellant              :   No. 1175 MDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 20, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0004135-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

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

      Appellant, Michael James Flory, appeals from the judgment of sentence

of one year of non-reporting probation imposed following his conviction for

one count of prohibited offensive weapon, 18 Pa.C.S. § 908(a). Appellant

contends that the trial court erred by allowing the Commonwealth to present

evidence of threatening behavior towards his family. We affirm.

      The facts are straightforward. Appellant lived in the home of Ursula, his

paternal grandmother. On May 15, 2021, Appellant’s father, James, called

the police, relating that Ursula expressed concerns about Appellant’s behavior

and wanted the police onsite while she retrieved some belongings. Officer

Alexander Schrift arrived and entered the home with James and another family

member. Officer Schrift tried to “defuse the situation and make sure there

wasn’t any aggression between [Appellant] or any of his other family

members.”     N.T., 5/25/22, at 132.    Appellant, who was in his bedroom,
J-S19010-23

“seemed to be very agitated and wasn’t very happy with his family.” Id. at

133.   While speaking to Appellant, Officer Schrift observed a pair of brass

knuckles on a piece of furniture he described as a dresser. Id. at 140. Officer

Schrift was wearing a body camera and recorded the incident, and the jury

saw Appellant’s bedroom and portions of his aggressive behavior, including

Appellant stating “that he was going to stomp [his family] out and that it would

be the police’s fault … in that circumstance.” Id. at 138. Appellant testified,

stating that he always had an affinity for brass knuckles as a curiosity item,

and that he used the knuckles to hold down papers.

       The jury convicted Appellant and he was sentenced as previously stated.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and complied with the trial court’s

order to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.

Appellant raises two claims on appeal, both of which concern the admission of

portions of the recording:

       I. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in admitting video
       evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b), showing [Appellant] making
       angry and threatening statements toward his father, in order to
       show [Appellant] did not intend to possess metal knuckles as a
       curio?

       II. In the alternative, if the video evidence the Commonwealth
       presented was admissible under Rule 404(b), did the lower court
       abuse its discretion in excluding evidence from the same video to
       show context on hearsay and relevance grounds?

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       We apply the following principles to the trial court’s determination to

admit evidence:

                                     -2-
J-S19010-23

      Our standard of review with respect to evidentiary rulings has
      been long established: The trial court’s rulings will not be
      disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.
      Thompson, 779 A.2d 1195, 1200 (Pa. Super. 2001). The trial
      court abuses its discretion if “it misapplies the law or [rules] in a
      manner lacking reason.” Commonwealth v. Rega, 856 A.2d
      1242, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960, 967 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted).

      The Commonwealth agreed that the comments and conduct displayed

on the body camera footage qualified as material that is generally barred by

Rule 404(b), which prohibits the admission of “any other crime, wrong, or act

… to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion

the person acted in accordance with the character.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1). The

Commonwealth informed Appellant pre-trial that it intended to play the entire

video. See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3) (requiring prosecution to “provide reasonable

written notice in advance of trial … of the … reasoning for the use of any such

evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial”). The Rule states that

other act evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence

of mistake, or lack of accident.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). In criminal cases, “this

evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs

its potential for unfair prejudice.” Id.

      Appellant filed a motion to exclude the evidence. At a pre-trial hearing,

the Commonwealth argued that the evidence was admissible under a res

gestae theory of relevance. That exception is not among those listed in Rule

                                      -3-
J-S19010-23

404(b)(2), but that list is not exclusive, Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d

491, 497 (Pa. 1988), and the courts have recognized the “‘res gestae’

exception to the general proscription against evidence of other crimes[,] …

also known as the ‘complete story’ rationale, i.e., evidence of other criminal

acts is admissible ‘to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its

immediate context of happenings near in time and place.’” Id. See also

Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 320, 332 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“In sum,

the history of the res gestae exception demonstrates that it is properly invoked

when the bad acts are part of the same transaction involving the charged

crime.”).

      The trial court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument and ruled that

the evidence was inadmissible “unless and until the defense opens the door.”

N.T., 5/25/22, at 22. Once Appellant conceded that he intended to raise the

curio defense, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to enter the

evidence in its case-in-chief to anticipatorily rebut the defense, on the basis

that Appellant’s intent in possessing the item was now relevant.

      We briefly set forth the curio defense as the Commonwealth contends

that the footage was relevant to rebutting that defense.        The prohibited

offensive weapon statute states, “A person commits a misdemeanor of the

first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or

otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.” 18 Pa.C.S. §

908(a). There is no dispute that the brass knuckles qualified as an offensive

weapon. The curio defense is one of several “exceptions” to the crime.

                                     -4-
J-S19010-23

      (b) Exceptions.--

         (1) It is a defense under this section for the defendant to
         prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed or
         dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic
         performance, or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade
         or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms
         Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.), or that he possessed it
         briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an
         aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any
         intent or likelihood that the weapon would be used
         unlawfully.

18 Pa.C.S. § 908(b). The term “curio” is not defined, and the only decision

examining its definition has cited the dictionary definition. “Neither the statute

for prohibited offensive weapon nor Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘curio,’ so

we turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which defines ‘curio’ as

‘something (such as a decorative object) considered novel, rare, or bizarre.’”

Commonwealth v. Battaglia, 809 WDA 2021, unpublished memorandum at

*7 (Pa. Super. filed May 20, 2022) (citation omitted).

      Appellant challenges the clips “show[ing] [Appellant] threatening to

fight his father and suggesting he might have to ‘stomp him out’ in the future.”

Appellant’s Brief at 20. He maintains that the trial court erred because the

prohibited offensive weapon statute contains no mens rea.            Accordingly,

Appellant posits that the only relevance of these comments and threatening

behavior “is if it was improperly considered as propensity evidence.”

Appellant’s Reply Brief at 2. Specifically, Appellant maintains that the video

clips “show [Appellant’s] propensity for anger and violence….”        Appellant’s

Brief at 17. Citing the trial court’s conclusion in its opinion that the evidence

was relevant to showing his intent, Appellant argues that the “rationale for

                                      -5-
J-S19010-23

admitting the evidence invited the jury to conclude that [Appellant]’s bad

behavior on one occasion meant he was an ‘angry’ or violent person who would

not possess the metal knuckles for an innocuous reason. This is the obvious

thrust of the trial court’s rationale.”    Id. at 21. Appellant cites federal

authorities examining the analogous federal rule of evidence in support. “For

example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained, ‘As we have frequently

stated, in proffering such evidence, the government must explain how it fits

into a chain of inferences—a chain that connects the evidence to a proper

purpose, no link of which is a forbidden propensity inference.’” Id. at

22 (emphasis in original; quoting United States v. Caldwell, 760 F.3d 267,

276-77 (3d Cir. 2014) (cleaned up)).

      We disagree that the evidence was relevant only for a propensity

purpose.   Appellant’s argument focuses less on whether the trial court’s

rationale is sound and more on how the jury theoretically could have used the

evidence. Id. at 21 (“At first blush, then, the court’s ruling makes a certain

amount of sense. On closer inspection … the reasoning collapses. This is

because the only way this evidence could serve its proper purpose is if the

jury used it improperly, i.e., as propensity evidence.”). We agree with the

trial court that the evidence was relevant to Appellant’s intent, which was

directly in issue due to Appellant’s testimony.

      In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Caldwell, supra. “What

happened in Caldwell is exactly what we have in this case, as [Appellant]’s

angry demeanor as depicted in the video evidence is only relevant to his intent

                                     -6-
J-S19010-23

if [it] establishes that his propensity for anger makes it unlikely that he would

possess metal knuckles solely as a curio.” Id. at 24-25. Initially, Appellant

recognizes that federal decisions are not binding and are relevant only for

their persuasive value. Okeke-Henry v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 163 A.3d 1014,

1017 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“We recognize that decisions of the lower federal

courts … may have persuasive, but not binding, authority on this Court.”). In

any event, we do not agree that Caldwell is directly on point. There, the

government charged Caldwell with violating a federal statute which prohibits

a convicted felon from knowingly possessing a firearm.        Because Caldwell

physically possessed the firearm, the Caldwell Court determined that

knowledge of the firearm was irrelevant.       “[A] defendant’s knowledge is

almost never a material issue when the government relies exclusively on a

theory of actual possession … absent unusual circumstances (such as when a

defendant claims he did not realize the object in his hand was a gun).”

Caldwell, 760 F.3d at 279.      The district court allowed the government to

introduce Caldwell’s two prior convictions for unlawfully possessing a firearm.

The Court held that the district court erred, as those convictions had no

relevance to the crimes charged beyond a propensity application.

      The prosecution sought to admit evidence that, on two prior
      occasions, Caldwell was convicted of unlawfully possessing
      firearms. The question the prosecution must answer is this: “How,
      exactly, do Caldwell’s two prior convictions for unlawful firearm
      possession suggest he knowingly possessed this gun on this
      occasion?” Hard as we try, we see only one answer to that
      question: If Caldwell knowingly possessed firearms in the past, he
      was more likely to have knowingly possessed the firearm this

                                      -7-
J-S19010-23

     time. This is precisely the propensity-based inferential logic that
     Rule 404(b) forbids.

Id. at 282.

     The specific question of prior convictions addressed in Caldwell

obviously raises the core propensity concern of “this person previously did

this, so therefore they must have done it here, too.” See Commonwealth

v. Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114, 1157 (Pa. 2017) (Wecht, J., dissenting) (“It is

natural and well-nigh inevitable that a juror considers a person to be a drug

dealer when told that the same person has dealt drugs multiple times in the

past, or that a juror will conclude that, if a person has assaulted women

before, he likely will do so again.”).   But, here, that core concern is not

present.   The Commonwealth did not introduce Appellant’s threats and

aggressive behavior to prove that he had a propensity to act in a threatening

and aggressive fashion.    Indeed, under the circumstances of the case, a

“propensity” for acting that way would make little sense as Appellant’s

behavior occurred contemporaneously with the charged offenses.             The

Commonwealth did not seek to show a “propensity” to act in that fashion, but

rather sought to show how Appellant acted on the incident date.

     Appellant’s fundamental objection is thus largely directed towards

general relevancy principles.   He argues that, just as in Caldwell, the

prosecution was not required to establish anything more than possession of

the brass knuckles.   Thus, his violent and aggressive behavior was simply

irrelevant to the case.   At this juncture, we discuss the elements of the

prohibited offensive weapon statute and how the curio defense operates.

                                    -8-
J-S19010-23

First, Appellant is correct that Section 908 has been viewed as a strict liability

offense and therefore the Commonwealth was not required to prove intent.

See Commonwealth v. Ponds, 345 A.2d 253, 254 (Pa. Super. 1975).1 In

Commonwealth v. Walton, 380 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 1977), this Court

addressed that point with respect to the statutory defense raised herein.

Walton was arrested and charged under Section 908 for carrying a sword cane.

Walton relied on the curio defense at trial, claiming that he purchased the

sword cane as an antique and was carrying it home when he was arrested.

On appeal, Walton alleged that the statutory defense was unconstitutional

because it placed the burden of proof on the defense.             We disagreed.

Addressing the actor’s intent, we stated:

       The primary concern of the statute is the nature of the weapon,
       not the intention of its possessor. The statute requires the
       Commonwealth to show no broader intent than the intent to
       possess the sword cane, which intent [Walton] does not dispute
       here. A defendant who invokes the curio exception seeks to avoid
       conviction by adding an ingredient to the otherwise criminal
       conduct, instead of “subtracting” one by attempting to persuade
       the court that an essential fact is missing from the
       Commonwealth’s case. Hence, the exception does not negate a
       material element of the offense set forth in Section 908(a), and
       the defendant may therefore be required to prove it.

Id. at 1280 (footnote omitted).

____________________________________________

1 But see In Int. of R.A.F., 149 A.3d 63, 71 (Pa. Super. 2016) (assuming,

without deciding, that because Section 908 has no express culpability
provision that 18 Pa.C.S. § 302 supplies a default level of culpability of
“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly”). See also Commonwealth v.
Giordano, 121 A.3d 998, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2015) (concluding that the similar
crime of possessing a weapon on school property, which contains no explicit
mens rea, is not a strict liability offense).

                                           -9-
J-S19010-23

     Judge Hoffman dissented, raising a point that ties into the trial court’s

ruling: if the statutory defense permits a defendant to show that he had no

intent to use the weapon in an unlawful manner, this implicitly establishes a

mens rea. Hence, the Commonwealth should bear the burden.

     Section 908(b) implies the existence of a mens rea requirement
     in the completed offense of [Section] 908(a) because it allows a
     defendant to exculpate himself by negativing the intent to use the
     weapon unlawfully. In Commonwealth v. Adams, … 369 A.2d
     479 ([Pa. Super.] 1976), Judge Spaeth, in a Concurring Opinion
     which I joined, noted the probable existence of a mens rea
     requirement:

        “If (the appellant) defends under [Section] 908(b) by saying
        that he possessed it ‘solely as a curio,’ is he, or is he not,
        saying that he possessed it without mens rea? If he is
        saying that he possessed it without mens rea, a rather
        curious situation is created: A defendant guilty under
        [Section] 908(a) … may exculpate himself by proving under
        [Section] 908(b) that he did not have mens rea, in other
        words, that he did not have what the Commonwealth was
        not required to prove he had.” Commonwealth v. Adams
        … 369 A.2d at 983 (Concurring Opinion by Spaeth, J.).

     It, therefore, seems illogical to deny the existence of an intent
     requirement in [Section] 908(a) when the basis for the statutory
     exception in [Section] 908(b) is proof that one lacked the intent
     to use the weapon unlawfully.

Id. at 1282 (Hoffman, J., dissenting). The majority responded to this claim.

     The fallacy in this argument is that a person might possess one of
     the described weapons without intending to use it for criminal or
     decorative or dramatic purposes. One might purchase a sword
     cane with the notion of using it to carve a leg of lamb; one might
     also impulsively purchase it for no particular reason. In either
     case the defense would be unavailable. The curio defense does
     not require the disproving of criminal intent but rather the
     establishing of a specific intent to use the item for a narrow
     purpose deemed acceptable by the legislature.

                                    - 10 -
J-S19010-23

Id. at 1280 n.4.

      The competing arguments on this point establish that raising the

defense puts Appellant’s intent at issue. The Walton majority’s response to

the dissent is the exact scenario we face here: Appellant claims that he

specifically intended to use the brass knuckles for a narrow purpose deemed

acceptable by the General Assembly, i.e., as a curio. To counter this defense,

we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth was permitted to offer

evidence shedding light on Appellant’s intent. “As intent is a subjective frame

of mind, it is of necessity difficult of direct proof. Accordingly, we recognize

that intent can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence; it may be

inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant circumstances.”

Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d 924, 929 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(cleaned up). Applying this principle, we agree that Appellant’s conduct so

close in time to the charged offense was relevant to his intent. The jury was

asked to decide whether Appellant’s testimony that he only used the brass

knuckles as a paperweight was credible. Evidence that Appellant was acting

in a threatening and aggressive manner towards his family members, in

conjunction with the evidence indicating that the object was not in any type

of display case, tended to undermine Appellant’s defense.         We therefore

conclude that the evidence was relevant to Appellant’s intent and was offered

for a non-propensity purpose.

      Appellant’s second claim is that even if we conclude that the evidence

was admissible for a non-propensity purpose, the trial court erred in balancing

                                     - 11 -
J-S19010-23

the probative value versus its prejudicial effect as required.2 “In a criminal

case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence
____________________________________________

2 Appellant’s statement of issues presented additionally claims that the court

erred by not playing the entire videotape, which included other comments by
Appellant. Particularly, Appellant focuses on his “explanation that his father
had threatened him and had been told by police not to contact [Appellant],
and that he was ‘fed up with’ his father and aunt’s failure to care for his
grandmother[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 35. The trial court responded to this
claim as follows:

       [Appellant] testified on his behalf and stated how his father and
       aunt do not do anything for his grandmother. While [Appellant]
       could have argued the state of mind [hearsay] exception for
       certain clips of the video, that argument does not cover every
       statement made in the video. Irrelevant parts of the video show
       [Appellant] discussing his work schedule and how he takes care
       of his kids. Moreover, there was no relevance to showing the
       video beyond what the jury had already seen. The charge was
       possession of a prohibited weapon. The fact that [Appellant]
       believed he was somehow justified in his anger towards his father
       is of no consequence to the facts at issue in the case.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/25/22, at 9. We are not entirely persuaded that
Appellant’s failure to cite hearsay exceptions justified excluding the tape as
the rule of completeness, Pa.R.E. 106, would seem to apply here.

       It is sometimes stated that the additional material may be
       introduced only if it is otherwise admissible. However, as a
       categorical rule, that statement is unsound. In particular, the
       statement is sometimes inaccurate as applied to hearsay law. At
       least when the other passage of the writing or statement is so
       closely connected to the part the proponent contemplates
       introducing that it furnishes essential context for that part, the
       passage becomes admissible on a nonhearsay theory.

The effect of the introduction of part of a writing or conversation, 1 McCormick
On Evid. § 56 (8th ed.) (footnotes omitted). However, Appellant did not
specifically cite this Rule of Evidence nor make an argument along these lines.
In any event, we agree with the trial court that the cited comments had little
relevance or were cumulative of evidence presented, as Appellant’s reasons
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 12 -
J-S19010-23

outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).      Appellant

quotes Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180–81 (1997), a United

States Supreme Court case addressing the federal rules of evidence and

whether the prosecution must accept a defendant’s offer to stipulate to a prior

conviction when the conviction is an element of the offense.3 He states:

       In Old Chief … the United States Supreme Court stressed two
       dangers created by evidence of other crimes or bad acts. Such
       evidence lures a factfinder into “generalizing a defendant’s earlier
       bad act into bad character and taking that as raising the odds that
       he did the later bad act now charged (or, worse, as calling for
       preventive conviction even if he should happen to be innocent
       momentarily).”

       These dangers were acute in this case, as the Commonwealth
       essentially admitted the whole point of adducing the evidence was
       for the jury to “generalize” [Appellant]’s uncharged bad acts and
       apply them to the charged offense. There was not so much a risk
       that the jury might put this evidence to an unintended and
       prejudicial purpose as there was a certainty that the only
       conceivable use of the evidence was prejudicial.

Appellant’s Brief at 27-28 (citation to transcript omitted).

       We disagree. As we have previously noted, this is not a case involving

the admission of a prior conviction. Informing the jury that a defendant has
____________________________________________

for being angry with his father are distinct from the issue of whether he was
angry at all. Appellant testified to his reasons for being angry with his father
and the Commonwealth’s witnesses did not dispute that any anger on
Appellant’s part may have been attributable to a dispute between Appellant
and his family. See N.T., 5/25/22, at 133 (“[Appellant] was complaining
about issues I believe between himself and his father, James Flory.”). As
such, we agree that any error in failing to play the entire videotape was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3 Our Supreme Court has declined to follow Old Chief on that specific
question. Commonwealth v. Jemison, 98 A.3d 1254, 1261 (Pa. 2014).

                                          - 13 -
J-S19010-23

been convicted of a crime is unquestionably more prejudicial than the “other

acts” at issue here.   As we concluded supra, Appellant’s raising a defense

entitled the Commonwealth to combat it, and the Commonwealth’s need to

present evidence is a factor in this analysis. See Commonwealth v. Tyson,

119 A.3d 353, 362 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting that “one factor in the ‘undue

prejudice’ analysis [is] the Commonwealth’s need” to present the prior act

evidence). Thus, the Commonwealth’s need weighs in favor of its admission.

The combination of the Commonwealth’s need to present additional evidence

to counter Appellant's defense and the relatively low prejudicial effect of

Appellant’s comments support the trial court’s conclusion that this evidence

was not more prejudicial than probative.     The trial court therefore did not

abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 08/28/2023

                                    - 14 -