Com. v. Carter, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Carter, K.

DecidedApril 24, 2018

Docket906 EDA 2017

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Carter, K. (Com. v. Carter, K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Carter, K., (Pa. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S02023-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : KYLE CARTER : : No. 906 EDA 2017 Appellant

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 20, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005038-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and RANSOM, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2018

Appellant Kyle Carter appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of

sentence of eighteen to forty years’ incarceration following a jury trial and

conviction for third-degree murder.1 Appellant challenges whether the court

erred by admitting into evidence a document that lacked sufficient indicia of

reliability and authenticity. He also alleges the court erred by permitting the

jury to view the document during its deliberations. We affirm.

We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court’s

decision. Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/14, at 1-4. Appellant timely filed, and the court

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c). J-S02023-18

denied, a post-sentence motion raising the above issues. Post-Sentence Mot.,

9/30/13; Order, 1/15/14. Appellant timely appealed, but this Court dismissed

his appeal for failure to file a brief. Order, 7/16/14. Appellant filed a

successful Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA)2 petition reinstating his direct

appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a

court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Did the court err in admitting into evidence an unsigned document characterized by the Commonwealth as a “notarized” document where said document was so unreliable as to not warrant its admission?

2. Did the court err in permitting the document in question to go out with the jury during deliberations?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

We summarize Appellant’s arguments for both of his issues. He

contends that the document had his unverified signature and a notary stamp,

but no signature by the notary. Appellant’s Brief at 13-14. Appellant asserts

that the document was insufficiently authenticated and thus should not have

been admitted for the substantive purpose of tying Appellant and the firearm

used to kill the victim together.3 Appellant also points out that the document

2 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9456. 3 Appellant also claims that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay. Appellant’s Brief at 14-15. But Appellant waived that argument as his only objection was that the document was not properly authenticated. N.T. Trial, 7/18/17, at 54; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

-2- J-S02023-18

was used as evidence that he was attempting to evade culpability. Id. at 15.

He argues that the court erred by permitting the jury to view the document

as it had minimal evidentiary value. We hold Appellant is due no relief.

“The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the

trial court and an appellate court may reverse only upon a showing that the

trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. McFadden, 156

A.3d 299, 309 (Pa. Super. 2017). Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 requires

parties to authenticate documents with “evidence sufficient to support a

finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Pa.R.E.

901(a). Parties may use circumstantial evidence to authenticate documents.

See Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 265 (Pa. 2008). “[T]he

ultimate determination of authenticity is for the jury. A proponent of a

document need only present a prima facie case of some evidence of

genuineness in order to put the issue of authenticity before the factfinders.”

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 508 A.2d 316, 320 (Pa. Super. 1986).4 Further,

the trial “court makes the preliminary determination of whether or not a prima

facie case exists to warrant its submission to the finders of fact, but the jury

itself considers the evidence and weighs it against that offered by the opposing

party.” Id. (citation omitted).

4We may rely on caselaw predating the enactment of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence to the extent the caselaw does not contradict the rules. Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2010).

-3- J-S02023-18

Generally, “the jury may take with it such exhibits as the trial judge

deems proper.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 646. But any objection to the jury’s view of

such exhibits must be made to the trial court and cannot be raised for the first

time on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Miller, 80 A.3d 806, 811 (Pa. Super.

2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the

decision by the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson, we affirm on the basis of the trial

court’s decision. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/14, at 4-7. Having found no abuse

of discretion, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/24/18

-4- 0040_Opinion Circulated 03/29/2018 08:37 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF CP-51-CR-0005038-2012 PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0005038-2012 Comm. v. Carter, Kyle Opinion FILED v.

KYLE CARTER I II Ill I 11111111111111111 7926146851 MAR 3 0 2017 Ap�lslPostTrial Office of Judicial RecordS OPINION

BRONSON,J. March 30, 2017

On July 19, 2013, following a jury trial before this Court, defendant Kyle Carter was

convicted of one count of murder of the third degree (18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c)).1 On September 20,

2013, defendant made an oral motion for extraordinary relief, which the Court denied. N.T.

9/20/2013 at 6-21. That same day, the Court imposed a sentence of 18 to 40 years incarceration

in state prison. Defendant filed post-sentence motions, which the Court denied on January 15,

2014. Defendant appealed and, on July 16, 2014, the Superior Court dismissed defendant's

appeal due to defendant's failure to file an appellate brief.

Defendant filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") on

October 7, 2014, alleging, among other claims, that counsel was ineffective for failing to file an

appellate brief. Barnaby Wittels, Esquire, was appointed to represent defendant on June 5, 2015.

On March 10, 2017, upon the agreement of both parties, the Court entered an order granting

defendant's PCRA petition in part and reinstated defendant's direct appeal rights. Defendant

filed a notice of appeal on March 10, 2017. Because defendant was now represented by new

counsel, the Court issued a new order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. l 925(b ).

1 Defendant was acquitted of one count of possessing an instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a)). Defendant has appealed from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court on the

grounds that: 1) "the Court erred in admitting into evidence an unsigned document characterized

by the Commonwealth as a 'notarized' document into evidence [sic] where said document was

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI