Com. v. Rementer

Decision Date28 October 1991
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Charles REMENTER, Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Samuel C. Stretton, Westchester, for appellant.

Eric Schoenberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.

Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and BECK and HESTER, JJ.

BECK, Judge:

On April 19, 1989, the decedent Mary Berry was crushed to death beneath the wheels of a passer-by's automobile while attempting to escape from an ongoing assault by her boyfriend, appellant Charles Rementer. Appellant was charged with having caused the death of Mary Berry and was convicted of murder in the third degree at a non-jury trial. He appeals from the judgment of sentence which was imposed after the denial of post-verdict motions. He raises two primary challenges to his conviction. Appellant first argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that his conduct caused the death of the victim. 1 He also alleges that the Commonwealth failed to prove malice, an essential element of third degree murder. We affirm.

Appellant's conviction for third degree murder arose from events which occurred during the early evening hours of April 19, 1989 in Philadelphia. On that evening, at about 6:30 p.m., the decedent Berry and appellant entered a bar together at 7th and Oregon. The bartender serving them, who had known Berry for many years, noted that Berry and appellant were arguing, although the bartender could not discern the substance of the argument. During the argument Berry became "very upset" and was "crying hysterical[ly]."

Shortly thereafter, Berry left the bar and got into her cab, which was parked outside and which she drove for a living. A moment later, appellant followed her, got into the driver's side where Berry was sitting, shoved her into the passenger's seat and drove away.

An out-of-town trucker, Brent Murphy, was taking a break from loading his truck a few blocks from the bar when he saw Berry's cab. Berry was hanging out of the passenger window, screaming "Help me, he's trying to kill me." The driver of the cab, identified as appellant, was holding on to Berry, beating her and pulling her hair. Berry, by "fighting and kicking", had managed to get one leg out of the passenger window, but all the while appellant was "trying to pull her back in by her hair."

While Murphy watched, Berry struggled away from appellant and fell out of the passenger window. Appellant also left the car and continued the assault on Berry, beating her "with his fists in the face" while she was lying on the ground. Murphy ran into a nearby supermarket and told somebody to call the police. When he emerged from the store, appellant was holding Berry against the cab while he continued to beat her. Murphy heard Berry say, "Don't hurt me, Charlie." Appellant pulled Berry into the cab, held her down, shut the door and drove away. About ten minutes later, a short distance away, Murphy saw the police. Berry was dead and the police had been summoned. Murphy explained to the police what he had witnessed moments earlier.

Meanwhile, three young men were standing at a nearby intersection. One of them, David Brotnitsky, saw appellant and Berry standing and arguing under the bridge of the I-95 on-ramp. Berry's cab was parked nearby on Water Street. Appellant punched Berry in the face and Berry ran away from him. Appellant pursued her, grabbed her and dragged her back to the cab. At first, appellant threw Berry in the back seat but she again managed to escape. Appellant then "got out after her and threw her in the front seat." Thinking that the fight was over, Brotnitsky stopped paying attention. The next thing he noticed was that the police had arrived on Water Street to investigate Berry's death.

Another witness, John Smith, was driving towards Water Street when he saw Berry's cab moving slowing along the curb with the passenger door open. Smith yelled and asked the occupants what was going on. Just then, Berry ran from the cab towards Smith's car shouting unintelligible pleas for help. Another occupant of Smith's car suggested finding a police officer. As he pulled away Smith saw Berry in the rear view mirror. She was lying on the street and a station wagon was driving away "from her body."

Joseph Campbell was also in the vicinity when he saw "Charlie", whom he recognized from the neighborhood, and Berry fighting and arguing. Berry was shouting for help and running from appellant. Campbell saw appellant punch Berry in the head. Berry then ran towards oncoming cars, finally stopping at a station wagon. From where he was standing a short distance away, Campbell saw Berry grab on to the window of the station wagon and then fall. No more than two minutes passed from the time Campbell saw appellant strike Berry in the face to the time she fell beneath the wheels of the station wagon to her death.

The station wagon referred to by Smith and Campbell was driven by Vito Michielli. Michielli and his wife and two small children were on Water Street that evening driving home from a shopping trip. Berry and appellant approached his car forcing him to stop. Berry was screaming "help me" and "let me in" and attempted to open the back door of the station wagon. Michielli and his wife were frightened and the children began to cry. The Michiellis' reaction was to lock all the doors and attempt to close the windows of the car. Mr. Michielli reached out of his window, pushed Berry away and sped off. Not until several days later, when a local newspaper reported the incident and Berry's tragic death, did Michielli realize that in leaving the scene his car had run over Berry.

Michielli's wife also testified. She said that she first saw Berry running up the middle of the street toward their car. Mrs. Michielli stated that appellant was chasing her and that when they reached the Michiellis' car, he was "right behind her". Berry went over to the driver's side of the station wagon and appellant went to the passenger side. Mrs. Michielli saw Berry reach in to open the rear door of the car and heard her scream, "Help me, Help me, please let me in." Mr. Michielli pushed Berry away from the car and immediately drove off. Mrs. Michielli was also unaware at the time that the incident had ended with Berry's death.

The medical examiner's report revealed that Berry had suffered "blunt head trauma consistent with direct blows to the face, recent contusions to the chin, right and left cheeks near the nose and contused lacerations to the upper and lower lips, on the inside of the mouth." The medical examiner also found that Berry sustained a crush injury of the chest, "consistent with a motor vehicle passing over the body." There were also fractures of the skull and of the ribs. The coroner's report, as stipulated to by the parties at trial, concluded that the crush injury was the cause of death. Finally, the Mobile Crime Unit discovered a large clump of Berry's hair inside the cab, which had been forcibly pulled from Berry's head.

At trial, appellant testified on his own behalf. He stated that both he and Berry had injected cocaine earlier on the day of her death. He testified that they were arguing and that they had also been drinking. Appellant stated that he drove Berry's cab out of concern for her welfare because she was "acting schizy from the cocaine." According to appellant, Berry's pleas for help were entirely unprovoked by him. He said that he pulled her back into the cab to prevent her from hurting herself and from "making a scene." Appellant admitted striking Berry but claimed that he did so out of anger because his attempts to calm her down by talking rationally had failed. He also claimed that he hit her only once, did not mean to hurt her and did not intend to kill her.

The trial court found appellant guilty of murder in the third degree. Following the denial of post-trial motions, appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four to twelve years. On appeal he argues that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to establish two essential elements of third degree murder, i.e., causation and malice. We will address each challenge separately.

We begin by noting that here, as with all challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the applicable standard of review is well-settled and quite narrow. We must determine whether, viewing all the evidence at trial, as well as the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be considered equally when assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521 Pa. 423, 430, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267 (1989); Commonwealth v. French, 396 Pa.Super. 436, 578 A.2d 1292 (1990).

Moreover, it is undisputed that causation constitutes an essential element of the offense of murder which the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 Commonwealth v. Webb, 449 Pa. 490, 296 A.2d 734 (1972). Our court has held that: "The Commonwealth must prove a direct causal relationship between the defendant's acts and the victim's death." Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 345 Pa.Super. 10, 28, 497 A.2d 616, 626, appeal denied, 517 Pa. 620, 538 A.2d 874, cert. denied, Barnhart v. Pennsylvania, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S.Ct. 55, 102 L.Ed.2d 34 (1985) (emphasis in original).

The issue regarding causation plainly arises in the instant case because the immediate cause of Berry's death was the crushing blow received under the wheels of Michielli's station wagon. Appellant argues that by the time Berry ran over to Michielli's car the "unfortunate domestic dispute" had ended and that therefore Berry's death had an accidental and intervening cause. Thus, according to appellant, the chain of causation between his assault on Berry and her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • People v. Tims
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1995
    ...of the principle that criminal proximate cause requires a higher standard than civil proximate cause. Commonwealth v. Rementer, 10 Pa.Super. 9, 598 A.2d 1300 (1991). 17 The Rementer court instructively It is difficult to draw a bright line between causation in the criminal law and in the to......
  • Sadik v. Tice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • January 28, 2022
    ...a two-part test. First, the defendant's “conduct must be ‘an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred.'” Id. at 1305 (quoting 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 303(a)(1)). “Thus, if the victim's death is attributable entirely to the other factors and not at all brought abo......
  • Com. v. Mercado
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • October 27, 1994
    ...296 (1991). Finally, malice may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the accused. Commonwealth v. Rementer, 410 Pa.Super. 9, 598 A.2d 1300 (1991), alloc. denied, 533 Pa. 599, 617 A.2d 1273 (1992); Commonwealth v. Austin, Because there is no argument in support o......
  • Commonwealth v. Spotti
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 5, 2014
    ...425 Pa.Super. 170, 624 A.2d 200, 203–204 (1993) , appeal denied,535 Pa. 645, 633 A.2d 150 (1993) ( citing Commonwealth v. Rementer, 410 Pa.Super. 9, 598 A.2d 1300, 1304 (1991), appeal denied,533 Pa. 599, 617 A.2d 1273 (1992)). In Rementer , we set forth a two-part test for determining crim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 14.03 PROXIMATE CAUSE (OR "LEGAL CAUSE")
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 14 Causation
    • Invalid date
    ...The Proximate Consequences of an Act, 33 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 651 (1920).[66] . 48 N.C. 421 (1856).[67] . Compare Commonwealth v. Rementer, 598 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (R hit V, his girlfriend, in a bar; R continued to pursue V when she left; V, in flight, fell to the ground and was r......
  • § 14.03 Proximate Cause (or "Legal Cause")
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 14 Causation
    • Invalid date
    ...The Proximate Consequences of an Act, 33 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 651 (1920).[64] 48 N.C. 421 (1856).[65] Compare Commonwealth v. Rementer, 598 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (R hit V, his girlfriend, in a bar; R continued to pursue V when she left; V, in flight, fell to the ground and was run o......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...732 (County Ct. 1976), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567, 577 (N.Y. 1984), 439 Rementer, Commonwealth v., 598 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991), 185 Rhodes, Commonwealth v., 510 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1986), 556 Richardson, State v., 923 S.W.2d 301 (Mo. 1996), 444 Ricker......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT