Com. v. Kane
Citation | 10 A.3d 327 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Robert Stephen KANE, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 29 November 2010 |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Theodore Simon, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Stephanie Austria, Assistant District Attorney, Scranton, for Commonwealth, appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following Appellant's convictions of attempted burglary, attempted criminal trespass, terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another person and criminal mischief. Appellant raises multiple issues for our review.
We first note the following legal principles:
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super.2007).
As will become evident by our analysis of Appellant's arguments, his appellate brief suffers from a myriad of maladies due to his failure to comply with the above-described requirements. The appellate brief is the most vital tool in any effort to obtain relief on appeal. Any effort and preparation for appeal are lost if the arguments in the brief are presented improperly, incompletely, or inaccurately. As this Court has stated:
Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517, 526 (Pa.Super.2007).
The trial court provided the following brief summary of the facts of this case:
[Appellant's] charges arose on the evening of March 5, 2008, when [Appellant] went to the victims' home in Scranton, and pounded on the door. When one of the victims asked who it was, [Appellant] replied that it was their worst fucking nightmare, and they should open the door or he would cut it down. He then started a chainsaw and proceeded to cut a gash through the front door. The victims fled out the back door.
Trial Court Opinion, 09/25/09, at 1-2.
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We review such claims as follows:
When evaluating a sufficiency claim, our standard is whether, viewing all the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the factfinder reasonably could have determined that each element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court considers all the evidence admitted, without regard to any claim that some of the evidence was wrongly allowed. We do not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Moreover, any doubts concerning a defendant's guilt were to be resolved by the factfinder unless the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that no probability of fact could be drawn from that evidence.
Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732, 735 (Pa.Super.2007) (citations omitted).
Appellant's arguments disregard our standard of review. They are not based on a view of the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth; rather, they are, at best, based on a view of the evidence in a light most favorable to Appellant.1 Appellant has thus failed to persuade us he is entitled to relief on these claims.
Appellant next argues the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
On this issue, our role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Rather, we are to decide if the trial court palpably abused its discretion when ruling on the weight claim. When doing so, we keep in mind that the initial determination regarding the weight of the evidence was for the factfinder. The factfinder was free to believe all, some or none of the evidence. Additionally, a court must not reverse a verdict based on a weight claim unlessthat verdict was so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice.
"An abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment but, rather, involves bias, ill will, partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of law." Commonwealth v. Bradford, 2 A.3d 628, 632-33 (Pa.Super.2010).
Appellant's argument on this issue consists principally of bald assertions, unsupported by citation to the record in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure ("Pa.R.A.P.") 2119(c). We are satisfied the trial court reviewed the evidence in this case and reasonably determined that, in light of that evidence, there was nothing shocking to the conscience about the guilty verdict. We perceive no abuse of discretion in this ruling.
Appellant's third issue is actually four separate issues involving distinct evidentiary and legal concerns. This conflation of multiple issues is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Appellant challenges: (1) the admission of the testimony of Earl Fedrick; (2) the admission of the testimony of Detective Pappas; (3) the failure of the Commonwealth to preserve the interview notes of Detective Pappas; and (4) the bolstering of the testimony of Cynthia Pruss.
Appellant argues Earl Fedrick's testimony should not have been admitted where he was called "solely to circumvent the hearsay rule." Appellant's Brief at 27. However, in his motion in limine seeking the exclusion of Mr. Fedrick's testimony, he argued such exclusion was proper on the sole basis of Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence ("Pa.R.E.") 403/the unfair prejudice of such testimony outweighing its probative value. Accordingly, he has waived the argument he presents on appeal by failing to raise it before the trial court. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Appellant argues Detective Pappas's testimony should not have been admitted for the purpose of rebutting Mr. Fedrick's testimony. He also argues the Commonwealth "erred" when it failed to produce Detective Pappas's original interview notes. Appellant's Brief at 30. Appellant fails to identify where these issues were preserved, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e). Accordingly, they are waived.
In his final argument in this series, Appellant argues the trial court improperly permitted Detective Pappas to bolster the credibility of Commonwealth witness Cynthia Pruss. For this argument, Appellant provides a transcription of the relevant objection at trial; however, he does not provide a citation to the record where the same may be located. Nonetheless, we have located it in the record. On redirect examination of Detective Pappas, the following exchange occurred:
N.T., 01/05/09 and 01/06/09, at 145-46.
We review this claim as follows:
The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, wherein lies the duty to balance the evidentiary value of each piece of against the dangers of unfair prejudice, inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Edwards
...when considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider both properly and improperly admitted evidence. Commonwealth v. Kane , 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied , 612 Pa. 689, 29 A.2d 796 (2011).14 As noted above, the trial court's staff placed the races and gende......
-
Keffer v. BOB Nolan's Auto Serv., Inc.
...were not the type of evidence reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of accident reconstruction); Commonwealth v. Kane, 2010 PA Super 218, 10 A.3d 327, 333 (defendant's motion in limine argued for exclusion of evidence only on the basis of unfair prejudice under Pa.R.E. 403; defenda......
-
Commonwealth v. Gilliam
...the complaining party." (citation omitted)). It is not the role of this Court to develop Appellant's argument. See Commonwealth v. Kane , 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) ("This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." (citation omitted)). I......
-
Commonwealth v. Hall
...Hall failed to present in his brief any meaningful argument in support of his weight claim, it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Kane , 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa.Super. 2010) (stating that an appellant must develop arguments sufficient for appellate review); Commonwealth v. Gooding , 437 Pa.Super. ......