Commonwealth v. Mumaw
| Decision Date | 19 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 234 MDA 2020 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC MATTHEW MUMAW Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ERIC MATTHEW MUMAW Appellant
No. 234 MDA 2020
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
October 19, 2021
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 9, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0000269-2017
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.[*]
MEMORANDUM
BOWES, J.:
Eric Matthew Mumaw appeals from his January 9, 2020 judgment of sentence of 204 to 488 months of incarceration, which was imposed after a jury found him guilty of third-degree murder, terroristic threats, prohibited offensive weapons, possessing an instrument of crime ("PIC"), abuse of a corpse, and recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"). We affirm.
We glean the relevant facts from the extensive certified record. This case concerns the violent death of David Gombert, who was beaten and shot by Appellant on November 1, 2016. The two men quarreled over the affections of a woman, Kirstyn Kankowski, [1] through text messages and social
media exchanges during the evening and early morning hours of Halloween 2016. In these communications, the parties mutually disparaged and threatened one another with veiled references to guns. Appellant posted a public statement on his Facebook account encouraging his acquaintances to film a "knockout video" featuring Gombert and requesting that Gombert be "found and brought" to him. N.T. Trial, 11/21/19, at 1471-72.
Appellant worked from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. that evening and arrived home on the morning of November 1, 2016, shortly before 9:00 a.m. A few minutes thereafter, Gombert arrived uninvited at Appellant's residence and demanded to speak with him by shouting through Appellant's bedroom window. After arming himself with a pair of brass knuckles and a loaded handgun, Appellant descended from his second-floor bedroom, opened one of the doors to his three-bay garage, and confronted the unarmed Gombert from the threshold of his garage.[2] Appellant claimed that he immediately threatened Gombert with his firearm upon coming face-to-face with him and instructed him to leave the property. However, according to Appellant, Gombert advanced and pushed him. Appellant responded by punching
Gombert in the head with his brass knuckles, which caused extensive blunt-force trauma to the victim's maxillary sinus. See N.T. Trial, 11/15/19, at 559-62. The Commonwealth's pathology expert opined the injury would have produced extensive internal and external bleeding and that Gombert was "aspirating blood" and in significant respiratory distress. Id. at 562-65.
Despite the severity of this injury, Appellant claimed that he observed no bleeding and that Gombert was undeterred in his alleged assault. He stated Gombert redoubled his efforts and tried to wrest away control of the gun. During the ensuing struggle, the tip of Appellant's left ring finger was shot off. Ultimately, Appellant claimed that he momentarily regained control of the gun and fatally shot Gombert once in the chest. After the shooting, Appellant dragged the victim's body from the garage to his driveway. He stowed his gun in his bedroom and hid the brass knuckles in his shoe. Several minutes after the shooting, he called 911 from his cell phone.
Officer Frederick J. Lahovski of the McAdoo Police Department was the first responder to the scene. His body camera was active that day and it captured him arriving and attempting to administer aid to Gombert. The camera also captured Officer Lahovski advising Appellant of his Miranda rights shortly after arriving.[3] See N.T. Trial, 11/18/19, at 746. With
Appellant's consent, Officer Lahovski took possession of Appellant's cell phone a few minutes after 10:00 a.m. Gombert was ultimately pronounced dead.
Appellant was transported by EMS to Pottsville East Hospital for treatment of his gunshot wound. Corporal Eric Schaeffer of the Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") accompanied Appellant and interviewed him over the course of approximately five hours as Appellant was undergoing treatment. Officers recovered the firearm from inside of Appellant's home. Corporal Shaeffer found the brass knuckles hidden in Appellant's shoe after searching the clothes and effects he voluntarily relinquished at the hospital. PSP also conducted a forensic examination of Appellant's cell phone, which yielded numerous text messages, social media communications, and photographs.
On November 3, 2016, Appellant voluntarily appeared at the PSP barracks in Frackville, Pennsylvania to be interviewed by Corporal Shaeffer and two other officers. Prior to questioning, Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and executed a written waiver of those rights. During an interrogation that lasted approximately eight hours with intermittent breaks, Appellant admitted to, inter alia, striking Gombert with the brass knuckles during their struggle. Appellant was arrested and charged with the above-referenced offenses in addition to first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and tampering with physical evidence.
Appellant sought pre-trial relief, including: (1) suppression of statements he made during his conversations with law enforcement; (2) funds to obtain the services of a criminal investigator and several defense experts, i.e., a forensic expert on blood splatter, a firearms expert on ballistics, and a computer expert; (3) exclusion of evidence extracted from his cell phone on authentication grounds; (4) leave to present testimony from his step-father, Donald Lowmaster, challenging the authenticity of the same electronic evidence; (5) that the jury be permitted to view the scene of Gombert's death; and (6) dismissal of all charges on the grounds that Appellant had acted in self-defense pursuant to the "castle doctrine."[4]
Several pre-trial hearings were held regarding these requests. Appellant's suppression motion was denied after the trial court found Appellant had received and understood the Miranda warnings given before both interviews. The trial court granted Appellant's requests for financial assistance in securing expert testimony and the services of a criminal investigator were granted. However, Appellant was, ultimately, "unable to secure them for the purposes of this case." N.T. Hearing, 7/19/19, at 4. With respect to the evidence seized from Appellant's cell phone, Appellant argued that the materials may have been tampered with by the PSP or by other unknown
persons. See Memorandum, 10/25/19, at 1-10. The parties agreed that a ruling on the admissibility of the cell phone evidence would be held in abeyance until trial, at which time the Commonwealth would offer testimony and evidence to authenticate the challenged items as each was introduced. Appellant's related request to present testimony from Lowmaster after the trial court found he did "not possess the credentials and educational expertise to allow him to testify . . . concerning the lack of authenticity" of the Commonwealth's evidence. Order, 10/30/19, at ¶ 2. The trial court denied the request for the jury to view the crime scene. Finally, the trial court determined that the issue of self-defense would be submitted to the jury and denied Appellant's request for a blanket dismissal.
Appellant's jury trial was held from November 13 to November 22, 2019. The evidence from Appellant's cell phone was admitted after the trial court concluded it had been sufficiently authenticated by the Commonwealth. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty of the offenses noted above, while finding him not guilty of tampering with evidence. On January 9, 2020, Appellant was sentenced to twenty to forty years of imprisonment for third-degree murder along with a consecutive sentence of four to eight months of imprisonment for abuse of a corpse. The trial court imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment on the remaining charges.
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion arguing that the sentence imposed was unreasonable and excessive. Before the trial court issued a
ruling, Appellant filed a premature notice of appeal to this Court. On February 20, 2020, the trial court denied Appellant's post-sentence motion.[5] The trial court and Appellant both complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant has raised the following issues for our consideration:
1. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the court's ruling on Appellant's motion to suppress his statements to PSP?
2. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the denial of Appellant's omnibus pre-trial motion seeking the appointment of expert witnesses and defense services?
3. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the court's ruling on Appellant's motion in limine seeking to preclude the use of social media, text messages, or other electronic media?
4. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the rulings as to the admissibility of the testimony of defense witness, Donald Lowmaster?
5. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the denial of Appellant's motion for a jury view of the alleged crime scene?
6. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in failing to direct a verdict of not-guilty based upon the Appellant's defenses of the "castle doctrine" and self-defense?
7. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in the court's imposition of a sentence in the aggravated range?
8. Do the errors and/or abuses of discretion of the trial court, singularly or in combination, require Appellant's conviction to be vacated and the case remanded to the court of common pleas?
Appellant's brief at 5-6 (cleaned up; issues reordered).
Appellant's first claim for relief alleges that the trial court erred in not suppressing his statements to police. Although Appellant acknowledges that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial