Commonwealth v. Leclair, No. 381 WDA 2019

• Decision Date: 24 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 381 WDA 2019
• Citation: 236 A.3d 71
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Christopher S. LECLAIR, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

236 A.3d 71

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Christopher S. LECLAIR, Appellant

No. 381 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted February 24, 2020

Filed July 24, 2020

Bruce G. Sandmeyer, Erie, for appellant.

Elizabeth A. Hirz, Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellant Christopher S. LeClair appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and related offenses. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the trial court's evidentiary rulings, and the restitution he was ordered to pay the United States Coast Guard (USCG). We affirm Appellant's convictions, but vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing.

We adopt the factual summary set forth by the trial court. See Trial Ct. Op., 7/19/19, at 4-13. Briefly, Appellant was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife, Karen LeClair (Wife), based on evidence that he took her out to Lake Erie on his boat, shot her in the head, and then disposed of her body in the lake by weighing it down with an anchor. Appellant then contacted the USCG to falsely report that Wife had fallen overboard.

The trial court set forth the relevant procedural history as follows:

On October 12, 2018, after a four-day jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder, abuse of a corpse, tampering or fabricating physical evidence, possessing instruments of a crime, firearms not to be carried without a license, and false reports to law enforcement authorities.^[1]

On December 11, 2018, after consideration of the presentence report, sentencing guidelines, witness statements, the safety of the public, the impact of the crime on the community, and Appellant's rehabilitation potential, the [trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison.] Further, Appellant was ordered to pay restitution to certain parties, including $705,974.80 to the [United States Coast Guard] (USCG). However, after legal argument and reconsideration by th[e trial c]ourt, this amount was reduced to $424,180.20.

On December 12, 2018, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, raising issues of the weight of the evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, and [challenging] the imposition of restitution to the USCG. Argument regarding the issues raised in the post-sentence motion, particularly the matter of restitution, was held on January 9, 2019. On January 10, 2019, the [trial c]ourt issued an order denying Appellant's motion for [a] new trial and arrest of judgment. Following arguments, the [trial c]ourt reconsidered the amounts of restitution and found Appellant to be responsible for $1,952.00 to the Pennsylvania State Police as costs of prosecution and $4,443.46 to the Crime Victim's Compensation Board for [Wife's] funeral expenses. These amounts were never contested by Appellant and were deemed legally sufficient for restitution. However, due to the complexity of the restitution issue, the [trial c]ourt gave counsel until January 23, 2019 to provide ... legal authority regarding whether the USCG qualified as a "victim" for the purposes of restitution.

On February 12, 2019, the [trial c]ourt issued its memorandum opinion and order, finding the USCG was in fact a "victim" for the purposes of 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106, the restitution statute in effect on the date of the murder. The [trial c]ourt also determined that restitution to the USCG would only be granted for the expenses that were incurred as a direct result of Appellant's criminal conduct. In fact, the [trial c]ourt determined that many of the invoiced expenses submitted by the USCG were [duplicative] fees and not incurred as a direct consequence of Appellant's criminal act. Once the [trial c]ourt determined [that] the USCG was a "victim," a second hearing was scheduled and conducted on February 26, 2018 to address the single issue of what expenses the USCG had actually incurred as a direct result of Appellant's criminal act. At the time of the hearing on February 26, 2019, Appellant and the Commonwealth came to an agreement as to the amount of restitution directly resulting from Appellant's criminal act. The terms of the agreement were placed on the record and the [trial c]ourt amended the sentencing order to reflect $424,180.20 as the amount of restitution payable to the USCG.

Trial Ct. Op., 7/19/19, at 1-2 (some formatting altered and footnote omitted).

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.^{2 ,3} The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant's issues, but concluding that Appellant had waived his weight and sufficiency claims by failing to specify which convictions or elements he intended to challenge on appeal. See Trial Ct. Op. at 14-15.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we have reordered as follows:

1. Was the verdict of the jury supported by the sufficiency of the evidence?

2. Was the verdict supported by the weight of the evidence?

3. Should the witnesses who heard statements by Appellant before the alleged homicide have been excluded as not relevant?

4. Should the witnesses who heard statements by Appellant before the alleged homicide have been excluded as violating Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure?

5. Was the USCG a victim for purposes of restitution and should it have received restitution?

Appellant's Brief at 3.

Initially, we agree with the trial court that Appellant failed to preserve his challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. See Trial Ct. Op. at 14-15. Although Appellant was convicted of multiple crimes, Appellant's sufficiency claim did not specify which elements or even which conviction he sought to challenge on appeal. Commonwealth v. Garland , 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reiterating that an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient and noting that "[s]uch specificity is of particular importance in cases where ... the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt"). Further, Appellant did not indicate which verdict or verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence, and did not offer a specific reason to support his generalized claim. See Commonwealth v. Freeman , 128 A.3d 1231, 1248-49 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that the appellant waived his challenge to the weight of the evidence where his Rule 1925(b) statement failed to specify which verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and did not offer specific reasons as to why the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence).

Under these circumstances, we are constrained to conclude that Appellant waived his challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. See Garland , 63 A.3d at 344 ; see also Freeman , 128 A.3d at 1248-49. Further, the trial court's decision to address the weight and sufficiency of the evidence does not affect our finding of waiver.⁴ See Commonwealth v. Cannon , 954 A.2d 1222, 1228 (Pa. Super. 2008) (reiterating that "when the trial court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review" and stating that a vague Rule 1925(b) statement may result in waiver, even if the trial court correctly guesses the issues an appellant seeks to raise on appeal. (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

In his next two issues, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing Thomas Foye, Alexandra Schuler, and Keith Love to testify about statements that Appellant made about his wife prior to her murder. Appellant's Brief at 16. Appellant asserts that the testimony was both irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 404(b).⁵

By way of further background to Appellant's claims, the trial court summarized the witnesses’ testimony as follows:

[Alexandra Schuler testified that] in approximately 2004, during a social gathering at a local boating club, Appellant volunteered to [Ms.] Schuler: "[I]’m going to put her on a boat, I'm going to drive out into the middle of the lake to the deepest part of the lake, she's going to fall off the boat and no one will ever find her body." When Ms. Schuler tried to uncomfortably laugh the statement off as a joke, Appellant said he was not joking and repeated the statement. Despite hearing the statement thirteen years ago, when the news media reported a woman falling overboard on a boat in the middle of Lake Erie, Ms. Schuler immediately called the Pennsylvania State Police to report [Appellant].

Thomas Foye, a local fisherman and acquaintance of Appellant, testified about a statement Appellant made in 2011 during a conversation about a news story about a man who had killed his wife. Appellant told Mr. Foye how he would kill his wife; specifically, Mr. Foye testified that Appellant stated "that what he would do was he would take and raise the life insurance policies, take out a loan and put her on the policies, and then he would take and wait a year, year and a half, take her out to the lake, wrap her up in a fishing net or rope, and they would never find her." Appellant said this with a straight face and Mr. Foye did not get the impression it was a joke.

Keith Love testified regarding conversations with Appellant that occurred in the months prior to June 2017. Appellant advised Mr. Love that [his wife] was dying from cancer

, and one day when Mr. Love asked how [Appellant's wife] was doing, Appellant responded: "Once the bitch is dead, I'll be set for life."

Trial Ct. Op. at 29.

Appellant argues that the witness testimony was not relevant to his case "because of the remoteness of time to the events of this case and the context of the conversation" in which Appellant made the statements about Wife. Appellant's Brief at 16-17. With...