Commonwealth v. Camacho
| Decision Date | 23 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1925 EDA 2013,J-S06006-15,1925 EDA 2013 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. MARCOS CAMACHO, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appellant, Marcos Camacho, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 50 to 100 years' incarceration, imposed after a jury convicted him of multiple counts of rape and related charges. After careful review, we affirm.
Appellant's convictions "stem from a series of knife-point rapes that occurred in the Kensington section of Philadelphia in November of 2011." Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 4/11/14, at 1. At Appellant's jury trial, four women testified that Appellant had raped them. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court sets forth a detailed recitation of the victims'testimony, as well as the other evidence presented at Appellant's trial. See id. at 2-10.
Appellant was sentenced on June 19, 2013, to the above-stated, aggregate term of incarceration.1 He filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, he presents three issues for our review:
1. Did the [c]ourt commit error when it allowed the victim, [L.G.], to testify to how she felt when she had come to court multiple times to identify [Appellant]?
2. Did the [c]ourt commit error when it barred defense counsel from cross[-]examining the victim, B.H., about her bipolar disorder which could have allowed the jury to more accurately weigh her testimony?
3. Were the verdicts against the weight of the evidence, as outlined in defense counsel's Post-Verdict Motion in Arrest of Judgment?
In Appellant's first issue, he asks this Court to remand for a new trial, claiming that one of the victims, L.G., offered testimony that was irrelevant and prejudicial. Initially, we note that at trial, Appellant's counsel objected to L.G.'s disputed testimony. N.T., 2/20/13, at 74. The objection wassustained, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard L.G.'s at-issue testimony. Id. at 75. Appellant did not request a mistrial at that time, or at any other point during his trial. See id. at 75. Consequently, Appellant cannot now argue, for the first time on appeal, that he is entitled to a new trial based on L.G.'s purportedly prejudicial testimony. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.").
Nevertheless, even if Appellant's first issue were properly preserved, we would conclude that it is meritless for the reasons set forth by the Honorable Charles Ehrlich of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in his Rule 1925(a) opinion. See TCO at 11-13. Likewise, having examined the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, Judge Ehrlich's well-reasoned opinion also accurately disposes of the remaining two issues presented by Appellant.2 See TCO at 14-18. Therefore, we adopt Judge Ehrlich's opinion as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on that basis.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
/s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/23/2015
Marcos Camacho, hereinafter Defendant, was found guilty during a jury trial on multiple counts of rape and related offenses on February 20, 2013. The charges stem from a series of knife-point rapes that occurred in the Kensington section of Philadelphia in November of 2011. The defendant was sentenced on June 19, 2013, to a term of incarceration of sixty (60) to one-hundred-twenty (120) years. A timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Defendant avers four points of error:
I. The Court erred by allowing Lauren Gennello to testify as to how she felt about having to come to court multiple times to identify Defendant, as such testimony unduly prejudiced the jury against Defendant and invariably led to her testifying to matter which were irrelevant and prejudicial and ultimately stricken by the Court;
II. The court erred by precluding defense counsel from cross examining Bethany Hannah about her bipolar disorder, as such cross examination would have elicited testimony that would have been relevant to the jury's assessment of her credibility;
As will be discussed below, these claims are without merit. Accordingly, no relief is due.
In November of 2011, Lauren Gennello was homeless and living in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. N.T., 02/20/2013, p. 40, Ms. Gennello was suffering from a severe heroin addiction and engaged in prostitution to fund her drug use. Id.
In the early morning hours of November 15, 2011, while sitting in front of a check-cashing store, Ms. Gennello saw the defendant in his vehicle at the intersection of Kensington Avenue and Clearfield Street. Id. at 42. Defendant approached Ms. Gennello and she left with him. Id. They entered Defendant's car and he drove approximately two blocks away. Id. at 45. The defendant drove a white Volkswagen Jetta—a vehicle Ms. Gennello was familiar with as she owned one previously. Id. at 43. The passenger seat was reclined toward the rear of the vehicle. Id. at 43. As Ms. Gennello attempted to adjust the seat, Defendant parked his car and climbed on top of her. Id. at 44. Defendant held a knife to Ms. Gennello and pulled her pants down. Id. at 45. Defendant then raped her without a condom. Id. After he had finished, Defendant swung his knife and told Ms, Gennello to "get the fuck out of my car." Id. at 46.
Ms. Gennello ran to a nearby convenience store and asked to call the police to report being raped. Id. at 47. The police arrived shortly thereafter and spoke to Ms. Gennello, who was experiencing heroin withdrawal. Id. at 48. She initially informed officers that Defendant used a condom (even though this was untrue) because she was scared and did not want anyone to touch her. Id. She told police the make and model of Defendant's car and her recollection of the licenseplate number. Id. at 49. A few weeks later Ms. Gennello provided a statement to detectives. Id. at 50. Later, at a line-up, she positively identified the defendant as her assailant. Id. at 50, 55. At the time of trial Ms. Gennello was free from drug use for nearly one month and living in a recovery house. Id. at 52. At trial she identified a photograph of Defendant's Jetta as the car she was raped in, Id. at 53. She further stated that there was no question that it was the defendant who raped her, stating: "A woman will never forget a face if [sic] someone who is on top of them when they think they are about to die." Id. at 55.
Philadelphia Police Officer Edmond Winters responded to Ms. Gennello's 911-call on November 15, 2011. Id. at 80, 81. When Officer Winters arrived on scene, he found Ms. Gennello crying; she was upset and visibly shaken. Id. at 81. Ms, Gennello reported a sexual assault by a heavy-set, Hispanic male aged 30-35 driving a white Volkswagen Jetta. Id. at 83.
Also, in November of 2011, Jessica Murtaugh was living in Kensington and suffering from a serious heroin addiction. N.T., 02/20/2013, p. 89. Like Lauren Gennello, Ms. Murtaugh was engaged in prostitution. Id.
Toward the end of the month, in the early morning hours, Defendant pulled up to Ms. Murtaugh and honked the car horn. Id. at 90. Ms. Murtaugh entered the car and Defendant drove about four blocks away. Id. Defendant quickly began to unbutton his pants and exposed himself, while grabbing Ms. Murtaugh's breasts and vagina. Id. at 91, 92. He exited the driver's side of the car and entered the passenger area. Id at 91. He reclined Ms. Murtaugh's seat while she repeatedly told Defendant to pay her before any acts would take place; Defendant insisted he would pay her afterward. Id. at 91. As he was on top of Ms. Murtaugh, Defendant continually tried to forcibly penetrate her as she fought him off. Id. at 92. After a minute or two, Defendant abandoned this effort and returned to the driver seat. Id. at 92, 93. Ms. Murtaugh demanded thatthe defendant take her back; he refused and ordered her out of his car. Id. at 93. He then readied into the driver's door compartment and pulled a knife, pressed it into her back. Id. At this, Ms. Muratugh got out of the car and fled. Id.
Ms. Murtaugh did not report the incident immediately. Id. at 95. She feared the police would not be concerned because of her lifestyle. Id. Eventually, Detective James Owens of the Special Investigations Unit ("SIU") of the Special Victims Unit ("SVU") interviewed Ms. Murtaugh and she provided a statement. Id. at 97. She described Defendant's car as an older model white Volkswagen Jetta in poor condition, with dark colored interior. Id. Ms. Murtaugh identified Defendant in a police photo-array on December 7, 2011. Id. at 100. At the time of trial, Ms. Murtaugh had been receiving treatment at a methadone clinic for one-and-a-half months. Id. at 104. She positively identified Defendant's car and stated that there was no question that he was the man who attacked her, Id.
In November of 2011, Tiffany Jones was homeless, living in Kensington and suffering from a serious crack-cocaine addiction, N.T., 02/21/2013, p. 79. Ms. Jones...
To continue reading
Request your trial