MEMORANDUM
STEVENS, P.J.E.
Sean
Michael Roberts appeals from the June 17, 2022 judgment of
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole imposed after a jury found him guilty of first-degree
murder.[1] After careful review, we affirm the
judgement of sentence.
The
trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as
follows:
In the predawn hours of October 15, 2020, the Carlisle
Borough Police Department responded to a 9-1-1 call reporting
a homicide at 169 and ½ East High Street, Carlisle
Cumberland County. The caller, later identified as Appellant
reported that he had murdered Jodi Sivak (hereinafter
"Victim"), by stabbing her in the neck. The police
quickly responded to the call, taking Appellant into custody,
and securing the scene of the crime. Immediately inside the
front door of the
property the police discovered Victim, who was pronounced
dead at the scene due to multiple stab wounds to the head and
neck. Clearly visible was a trail of blood leading from
Victim's body to the first-floor kitchen where the murder
weapon, a folding knife, was recovered from the sink. Also
visible was a blood trail leading to the second-floor
bathroom, where Appellant's bloody clothes were located
next to the shower. Appellant also had a bandaged wound on
his hand, which appeared to have been a result of either
Victim's attempt at self-defense, or Appellant cutting
himself while struggling with Victim for control of the
knife.
After being detained at the scene, Appellant was transported
to the Carlisle Police Department, where he gave a voluntary
interview. In that interview, Appellant described that he had
flown out from Massachusetts to spend a week with Victim, a
previous girlfriend of his. He stated that they had spent a
pleasant time together, and that he was originally going to
fly home on October 15th. Appellant went on to
describe that, on the night of the crime, he and Victim had
been drinking whiskey earlier in the night, and that a
neighbor had provided some "Amish weed" for the
pair to smoke. However, Appellant flatly stated during the
interview that at the time of the stabbing he was not
impaired or intoxicated to the point that he was out of
control of his actions, and he had a clear recollection of
having an argument with Victim before stabbing her.
Importantly, during the interview Appellant stated with
respect to his alcohol consumption being a factor in the
murder, "Yeah I don't, I don't think that had
anything to do with it, but I mean, whatever, lawyers,
whatever is gonna try to say otherwise, but I don't think
it had anything to do with it." In fact, the recorded
interview demonstrated that Appellant was both candid
regarding his actions and fully cooperative with the police
in their initial investigation of the murder.
Notably, Appellant recalled that he grabbed the knife and
repeatedly stabbed Victim, and that he attempted to cover her
mouth during the attack to prevent her
from screaming. After killing Victim, Appellant walked to the
first-floor kitchen to wash his hands and deposit the knife
in the sink. He stated that he then went to the second-floor
bathroom to take a shower, dress his wound, and change his
clothes, before taking a nap and then making the 9-1-1 phone
call which summoned the police to his location. During that
9-1-1 call, Appellant informed the operator that he intended
to peacefully surrender, and that he was not armed.
Trial
court opinion, 10/4/22 at 1-4 (footnotes omitted).
Appellant
was subsequently charged with first-degree murder and
proceeded to a jury trial on April 11, 2022. Following a
three-day jury trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty
of first-degree murder. As noted, Appellant was sentenced to
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on June
17, 2022. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion which was
denied by the trial court following a hearing on July 14,
2022. This timely appeal followed on August 9,
2022.[2]
Appellant
raises the following issues for our review:
I. Was the conviction against the weight of the evidence such
that it shocked one's sense of justice based on the
evidence of [Appellant's] intoxication presented during
trial and the Commonwealth's failure to prove that he
acted with the specific intent to kill?
II. Based on the evidence of [Appellant's] intoxication
presented during trial, did the trial court err in failing to
give the jury instruction for voluntary intoxication or
drugged condition as
defense to first-degree murder, as requested by counsel?
Appellant's
brief at 5 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Appellant
first argues that the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence because "it shocked one's sense of justice
based on the evidence of [his] intoxication" and the
Commonwealth's purported "failure to prove [his]
specific intent to kill[.]" Appellant's brief at 10.
We disagree.
This
Court has recognized that "a true weight of the evidence
challenge concedes that sufficient evidence exists to sustain
the verdict but questions which evidence is to be
believed." Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d
632, 643 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 183 A.3d 970 (Pa. 2018). "An allegation
that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is
addressed to the discretion of the trial court."
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 793 (Pa. 2009)
(citation omitted), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1051
(2010).
[W]here the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below,
an appellate court's role is not to consider the
underlying question of whether the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited
to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in
ruling on the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 40 A.3d 1250, 1253
(Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and
see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the
gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by
the trial judge when
reviewing a trial court's determination that the verdict
is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least
assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the
lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not
against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial
should be granted in the interest of justice.
This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the
trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial
based on a challenge to the weight of the evidence is
unfettered. In describing the limits of a trial court's
discretion, we have explained[,] [t]he term
"discretion" imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion
within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion
must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to
prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary
actions. Discretion is abused where the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not
applied or where the record shows that the action is a result
of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013)
(citations and emphasis omitted).
Upon
review, we find that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion in concluding that the jury's verdict was not
against the weight of the evidence. See trial court
opinion, 10/4/22 at 5-7. "[T]he trier 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. Andrulewicz,
911 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted),
appeal denied, 926 A.2d 972 (Pa. 2007).
Here
the jury heard testimony from multiple witnesses that
Appellant stabbed the victim nine times in her neck and head
area, resulting in her death. See notes of
testimony, 4/12/22 at 183-196, 208-210 (Dr. Wayne Ross);
236-238, 244-246 (Robert Johnson). The jury also had the
benefit of a video recording of Appellant's interview
with the police in the immediate aftermath of the murder,
wherein he provided a detailed timeline the murder and
expressly stated that he was not intoxicated to the point
where he did not know what he was doing. See
Commonwealth's Exhibit No. 10 - Recorded Interview; notes
of testimony, 4/11/22 at 127-128. The jury clearly found the
testimony and evidence presented at trial credible and
elected not to believe Appellant's subsequent version of
the events. We are precluded from reweighing the evidence and
substituting our judgment for...
