Commonwealth v. McNeil

• Decision Date: 21 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1422 MDA 2020,1422 MDA 2020
• Citation: 258 A.3d 538 (Table)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Shelton S. MCNEIL, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

258 A.3d 538 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Shelton S. MCNEIL, Appellant

No. 1422 MDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: June 21, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellant Shelton S. McNeil appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of four to eight years' incarceration imposed after a jury convicted him of Strangulation, graded as a second-degree felony.¹ He challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.

We glean the following factual and procedural history from the trial court's Opinion, which is supported by the certified record. See Tr. Ct. Op, filed Jan. 20, 2021. On December 25, 2018, a man called police at 4:45 AM from 2015 Market Street in Harrisburg to report a domestic disturbance in a neighboring apartment. When Corporal Matthew Novchich arrived at the building, Audrey Blackstone approached him on the street holding a napkin to her neck over a puncture wound. She was very upset, and had blood on her shirt, swelling and scratches on her face, and redness around her neck. She told Corporal Novchich that Appellant, whom she had recently dated, had stabbed and strangled her after she voluntarily let him into her house. She indicated that he may still be in the apartment. Appellant had fled but Corporal Novchich noticed that the apartment was "torn up and belongings had been thrown around." Tr. Ct. Op. at 3 (citing N.T.). EMS transported Ms. Blackstone to the hospital.

Corporal Novchich interviewed Ms. Blackstone at the hospital, where he noticed that in addition to the blood stains on her shirt, dried blood on her face and mouth, and a puncture wound below her left ear, she had redness on her neck and visibly red eyes with broken capillaries. Her medical records indicated, among other injuries, that she had strangulation marks on her neck. Ms. Blackstone signed a domestic violence statement and a strangulation questionnaire that night, in which she stated, among other things, that Appellant had used two hands to choke her for approximately two minutes so that she could not breath, almost lost consciousness, and felt like her eyes were bulging out of her head. She obtained a Protection from Abuse Order ("PFA") against Appellant after the incident.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with Strangulation and Aggravated Assault. On August 17, 2020, a one-day jury trial proceeded at which Ms. Blackstone, Corporal Novchich, and Appellant testified. The court admitted photographs of Ms. Blackstone's injuries, medical records, domestic violence statement, strangulation questionnaire, and PFA application. The court informed the jury of Ms. Blackstone's prior crimen falsi conviction for fraudulently obtaining drugs. Appellant testified that he never assaulted Ms. Blackstone.

The jury found Appellant guilty of Strangulation but could not reach a verdict on the Aggravated Assault charge. The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation.

On October 6, 2020, the court sentenced Appellant to four to eight years' incarceration. Appellant filed a Post-Sentence Motion, which the court denied.

Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion.

Appellant presents the following Statement of Questions Presented:

1. Whether the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove Appellant strangled Audrey Blackstone where the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Appellant knowingly or intentionally impeded Audrey Blackstone's breathing by applying pressure to the throat or neck and that Appellant was a family or household member.

2. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Appellant's Post-Sentence Motion because the verdict was so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice[.]

Appellant's Br. at 5.

Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his Strangulation conviction. Id. at 12-14. He specifically contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was a household member to support the grading of the offense as a second-degree felony. Id . This challenge has no merit.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard is well-settled. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Commonwealth v. Alford , 880 A.2d 666, 669-670 (Pa. Super. 2005).

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Tejada , 107 A.3d 788, 792-793 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a), "[a] person commits the offense of Strangulation if the person knowingly or intentionally impedes the breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by: (1) applying pressure to the throat or neck; or (2) blocking the nose and mouth of the person." The "[i]nfliction of a physical injury to a victim shall not be an element of the offense[,]" and "[t]he lack of physical injury to a victim shall not be a defense[.]" 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(b).

It is well-established that a victim's testimony alone can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Commonwealth v. Johnson , 180 A.3d 474, 479 (Pa. Super. 2018). "[A] solitary witness's testimony may establish every element of a crime, assuming that it speaks to each element, directly and/or by rational inference." Id . (italics omitted).

Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(d)(2)(i), Strangulation is graded as a second-degree felony when it is committed "against a family or household member, as defined in 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102." Section 6102 defines "Family or household members" as, inter alia , "current or former sexual or intimate partners[.]" 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102. There is no specific length of time or number of sexual encounters specified in the definition and case law does not interpret the statute as imposing such. See , e.g. , Evans v. Braun , 12 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2010) (where victim and abuser "mutually chose" to enter a "dating relationship" which involved "romantic bond," evidence was sufficient to prove they were current or former sexual or intimate partners under Section 6102(a) ); D.H. v. B.O. , 734 A.2d 409, 410 (Pa. Super. 1999) (stating that parties who were in a month-long sexual relationship fell within Section 6102(a)'s definition of a family or household member).

The bulk of Appellant's sufficiency argument is that the evidence does not support the grading of the offense as a second-degree felony. Appellant avers that "[o]ne sexual encounter is not sufficient to prove Ms. Blackstone and [Appellant] were intimate or sexual partners or a couple as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102." Appellant's Br. at 13. He contends, with reference to the Merriam-Webster dictionary but not one citation to relevant case law, that "an on-and-off again relationship, or a terminated relationship is not sufficient to establish Ms. Blackstone and [Appellant] were intimate or sexual partners[.]" Id . at 13-14. Appellant's argument has no basis in fact or law.

The trial court addressed Appellant's grading contention as follows:

The Commonwealth presented evidence through Ms. Blackstone that proved Appellant and Ms. Blackstone had been dating for approximately two months at the time of the incident and that they had an intimate relationship. (N.T., 20-21). This assertion remained consistent through Ms. Blackstone's statement to police, both oral and written, and her trial testimony. (N.T., 20-21, 47-48). On cross examination, Ms. Blackstone reiterated the nature of her relationship with Appellant by reading her answer to this question from her statement to Corporal Novchich. (N.T., 45, 47-48). Ms. Blackstone's statement stated that she and Appellant had a sexual relationship. (N.T., 47-48). The definition of a family or household member includes those in a sexual or intimate relationship. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102.

Tr. Ct. Op. at 8.

In addition to the evidence noted by the trial court, our review of Appellant's testimony reveals that he also acknowledged that he had had an intimate relationship with Ms. Blackstone. See N.T. Trial at 106-111 (stating (1) they knew each other during childhood, reconnected 20 years later in a bar on November 7, 2018, started "just talking, like friends[, a]nd then after like a week we just started getting a little closer;" (2) the relationship lasted "no more than a month[;]" (3) he "was trying to be away from her until she "called [him] one time and said that she was pregnant[;]" and (4) he went to her house at "almost four" on Christmas morning because she had "called at three something...