J-A09034-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ, : : Appellant : No. 750 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 3, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010638-2018
BEFORE: SHOGAN J., MURRAY, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2020
Emmanuel Hernandez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on April 3, 2019, after he was found guilty of simple
assault. We affirm.
The conviction in this matter stems from an incident that occurred on
the morning of August 16, 2018, when Appellant physically assaulted his
wife, Kimberly Morrissey (Victim), who is legally blind, at their home.
Appellant and Victim offered different versions of the events at a non-jury
trial on April 3, 2019.
According to Victim, at approximately 9:00 a.m., she was sitting alone
on the front porch talking to her friend on the phone. Appellant, who was
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A09034-20
drunk “from drinking all night long[,]” suddenly came out of the front door
and loudly called her “a stupid fucking bitch.” N.T., 4/3/2019, at 17, 52.
Victim pushed Appellant into the home and attempted to close the front door
to get him away from her because she was “so embarrassed.” Id. at 52-53,
56. Simultaneously, Victim pulled and unintentionally broke the headphones
Appellant was wearing on his ears. In response, Appellant struck Victim in
the middle of her forehead with an object that she believed was a piece of
Appellant’s broken headphones. Due to the blow, Victim sustained a three-
centimeter laceration on her head. Victim ended the call with her friend and
immediately called the police.
Officer Matt Schwartzmiller of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department
provided testimony about his response to the call. Upon his arrival at the
home, Officer Schwartzmiller observed Victim sitting on the front porch and
Appellant kneeling next to her apologizing. Officer Schwartzmiller detained
Appellant after noticing fresh blood coming from a welt on Victim’s forehead.
Thereafter, Appellant said repeatedly “I’m guilty” to Officer Schwartzmiller.
Id. at 61.
Paramedics transported Victim to UPMC Mercy Hospital to provide
Victim medical attention for her injuries. Victim’s laceration was treated
with five dissolvable sutures. The medical professional noted gaping when
pressure was applied to the laceration. At the time of the trial, a “slight line”
-2- J-A09034-20
remained on Victim’s forehead and the injury may leave a permanent scar.
Id. at 55.
Conversely, Appellant assailed Victim and Officer Schwartzmiller’s
testimony, contending that Victim pushed Appellant several times and
intentionally cut herself with his headphones after she pulled them off of his
ears. In support of this contention, Appellant asserted that Victim “suffers
from emotional problems” and this incident is “not the first time she trie[d]
to harm herself.” Id. at 66-67. Further, Appellant argued that he never said
he was guilty and was not apologizing to his wife, but rather was pleading
with her to stop with the call to police because he would be blamed. Lastly,
Appellant asserted that Victim cut him with the headphones, and he
attempted to make a report at the scene with an officer different from
Officer Schwartzmiller and the responding paramedics, but was ignored. Id.
at 68, 72. Appellant did not present any evidence to substantiate this claim.
Following the non-jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of simple
assault. He was sentenced on the same day to two years of probation, and
ordered to have no contact with Victim, complete a batterer’s intervention
program, and pay all applicable fees and court costs.
-3- J-A09034-20
Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied. This
timely-filed appeal followed.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the weight of
the evidence to sustain his simple assault conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We use the following standard to assess whether a trial court abused
its discretion in denying a challenge to the weight of the evidence.
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. It has often been stated that a new trial should be awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.
Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803, 809 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted). Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055
(Pa. 2013).
To support his challenge, Appellant essentially posits that his
testimony is more credible than that of the Commonwealth’s witnesses.
Appellant’s Brief at 9-12. First, Appellant argues that Victim’s testimony is ____________________________________________
1Both Appellant and the trial court complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4- J-A09034-20
not credible based on her physical and mental state. Id. at 10-11.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Victim’s testimony is “unreliable” because
she is legally blind and therefore could not definitively identify the object
that hit her in the face at trial. Id. at 11. He also emphasizes her
“Alzheimer’s/dementia diagnosis,” and claims she “has suffered from
recurrent major depression.” Id. Next, Appellant attempts to negate Officer
Schwartzmiller’s testimony of the events by arguing that Appellant testified
more credibly to the events in the opposite. Id.
The trial court rejected Appellant’s weight claim, offering the following.
[T]his court, who sat as the fact-finder in this case, did not find [Appellant’s] self-serving testimony to be credible. His testimony was inconsistent with, and unsupported by, other credible evidence in the record. [Appellant’s] challenge to the weight of the evidence is, at its core, an invitation for the appellate court to reweigh the evidence and second-guess the credibility determinations made by the court in this case.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/30/2019, at 11.
In reviewing Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight
of the evidence, the trial court found that “[t]here were no facts in this case
that were ‘so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them
equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’ To the contrary, [the trial
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A09034-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ, : : Appellant : No. 750 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 3, 2019 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010638-2018
BEFORE: SHOGAN J., MURRAY, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2020
Emmanuel Hernandez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on April 3, 2019, after he was found guilty of simple
assault. We affirm.
The conviction in this matter stems from an incident that occurred on
the morning of August 16, 2018, when Appellant physically assaulted his
wife, Kimberly Morrissey (Victim), who is legally blind, at their home.
Appellant and Victim offered different versions of the events at a non-jury
trial on April 3, 2019.
According to Victim, at approximately 9:00 a.m., she was sitting alone
on the front porch talking to her friend on the phone. Appellant, who was
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A09034-20
drunk “from drinking all night long[,]” suddenly came out of the front door
and loudly called her “a stupid fucking bitch.” N.T., 4/3/2019, at 17, 52.
Victim pushed Appellant into the home and attempted to close the front door
to get him away from her because she was “so embarrassed.” Id. at 52-53,
56. Simultaneously, Victim pulled and unintentionally broke the headphones
Appellant was wearing on his ears. In response, Appellant struck Victim in
the middle of her forehead with an object that she believed was a piece of
Appellant’s broken headphones. Due to the blow, Victim sustained a three-
centimeter laceration on her head. Victim ended the call with her friend and
immediately called the police.
Officer Matt Schwartzmiller of the City of Pittsburgh Police Department
provided testimony about his response to the call. Upon his arrival at the
home, Officer Schwartzmiller observed Victim sitting on the front porch and
Appellant kneeling next to her apologizing. Officer Schwartzmiller detained
Appellant after noticing fresh blood coming from a welt on Victim’s forehead.
Thereafter, Appellant said repeatedly “I’m guilty” to Officer Schwartzmiller.
Id. at 61.
Paramedics transported Victim to UPMC Mercy Hospital to provide
Victim medical attention for her injuries. Victim’s laceration was treated
with five dissolvable sutures. The medical professional noted gaping when
pressure was applied to the laceration. At the time of the trial, a “slight line”
-2- J-A09034-20
remained on Victim’s forehead and the injury may leave a permanent scar.
Id. at 55.
Conversely, Appellant assailed Victim and Officer Schwartzmiller’s
testimony, contending that Victim pushed Appellant several times and
intentionally cut herself with his headphones after she pulled them off of his
ears. In support of this contention, Appellant asserted that Victim “suffers
from emotional problems” and this incident is “not the first time she trie[d]
to harm herself.” Id. at 66-67. Further, Appellant argued that he never said
he was guilty and was not apologizing to his wife, but rather was pleading
with her to stop with the call to police because he would be blamed. Lastly,
Appellant asserted that Victim cut him with the headphones, and he
attempted to make a report at the scene with an officer different from
Officer Schwartzmiller and the responding paramedics, but was ignored. Id.
at 68, 72. Appellant did not present any evidence to substantiate this claim.
Following the non-jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of simple
assault. He was sentenced on the same day to two years of probation, and
ordered to have no contact with Victim, complete a batterer’s intervention
program, and pay all applicable fees and court costs.
-3- J-A09034-20
Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, which was denied. This
timely-filed appeal followed.1 On appeal, Appellant challenges the weight of
the evidence to sustain his simple assault conviction. Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We use the following standard to assess whether a trial court abused
its discretion in denying a challenge to the weight of the evidence.
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. It has often been stated that a new trial should be awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.
Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803, 809 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation
omitted). Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of
discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055
(Pa. 2013).
To support his challenge, Appellant essentially posits that his
testimony is more credible than that of the Commonwealth’s witnesses.
Appellant’s Brief at 9-12. First, Appellant argues that Victim’s testimony is ____________________________________________
1Both Appellant and the trial court complied with the mandates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
-4- J-A09034-20
not credible based on her physical and mental state. Id. at 10-11.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Victim’s testimony is “unreliable” because
she is legally blind and therefore could not definitively identify the object
that hit her in the face at trial. Id. at 11. He also emphasizes her
“Alzheimer’s/dementia diagnosis,” and claims she “has suffered from
recurrent major depression.” Id. Next, Appellant attempts to negate Officer
Schwartzmiller’s testimony of the events by arguing that Appellant testified
more credibly to the events in the opposite. Id.
The trial court rejected Appellant’s weight claim, offering the following.
[T]his court, who sat as the fact-finder in this case, did not find [Appellant’s] self-serving testimony to be credible. His testimony was inconsistent with, and unsupported by, other credible evidence in the record. [Appellant’s] challenge to the weight of the evidence is, at its core, an invitation for the appellate court to reweigh the evidence and second-guess the credibility determinations made by the court in this case.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/30/2019, at 11.
In reviewing Appellant’s post-sentence motion challenging the weight
of the evidence, the trial court found that “[t]here were no facts in this case
that were ‘so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them
equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.’ To the contrary, [the trial
court found that] the weight of the evidence was squarely against
[Appellant.]” Id. at 12 (citations omitted). We agree with the trial court’s
assessment. “Credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence
produced is within the province of the trier of fact, who is free to believe all,
-5- J-A09034-20
part, or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 162 A.3d
1140, 1144 (Pa. Super. 2017). The trial court heard the evidence first-hand
during the non-jury trial, determined Victim and Officer Schwartzmiller were
more credible than Appellant, and entered a verdict reflecting this credibility
determination. Assessing all of the evidence according to the governing
principles cited above, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Appellant’s weight claim, and therefore Appellant is
not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753
(“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[.]”).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 6/9/2020
-6-