J-S25017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAMUEL LANCE MCPHERSON : : Appellant : No. 1228 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 26, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002753-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2018
Samuel McPherson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after
the trial court found him guilty of simple assault and summary harassment
arising from charges he pointed a gun at Eldwin Williams. McPherson argues
the court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to present Williams’s written
statement from the night of the crime. And that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
Williams testified that he met McPherson’s girlfriend, Sylvia Cottom, at
the casino where they had gambled together that night. Around 3:30 a.m.,
Williams gave Cottom a ride to her home. When they arrived, McPherson and
Cottom’s mother were waiting on the porch.
Cottom and McPherson began to argue. While they argued, Cottom’s
mother asked Williams if he could give McPherson a ride to his home, since J-S25017-18
McPherson had missed his bus. Williams agreed to do so, and when McPherson
entered his car, McPherson said, “look here.” McPherson was pointing a gun
at Williams. Williams fled from his car, screaming for help.
At this point in Williams’s testimony, the Commonwealth sought to enter
the written statement Williams gave to police shortly after the incident.
Defense counsel objected, arguing the statement was hearsay, and further,
that the prosecutor was attempting to bolster Williams’s credibility before it
had been challenged. The trial court overruled the objection, and allowed the
written statement to be entered into evidence.
Officer Craig Canella testified that police received a report of a man
banging on a door, yelling that he was going to be shot. Officer Canella
responded to the call and interviewed Williams. After hearing Williams’s story,
he drove to Cottom’s home, where McPherson was sitting on the porch.
Williams’s car was still in the street, with its doors closed and the engine
running. McPherson told the officers that a man had just stopped the car and
started running down the street. No gun was found on McPherson. Cottom’s
mother refused to allow officers into her home to search for a gun.
Officer Canella instructed Williams to move his vehicle, as it was illegally
parked. He also requested that Williams come to the police station the next
day to give a statement. Williams appeared at the station and gave a written
statement at 5:25 a.m.
-2- J-S25017-18
McPherson testified that he received a phone call from Cottom indicating
she was leaving the casino at 1 a.m. that night. He became concerned when
Cottom was not home shortly thereafter. When Williams dropped off Cottom,
he admitted he argued with Cottom about her failure to let him know her
schedule had changed.
Cottom’s mother interrupted, noting that she didn’t want the argument
on her property in the middle of the night. She informed McPherson that
Williams would give him a ride to his home on the other side of town.
McPherson was grateful, noting the long bus ride the trip would otherwise
require.
When he got in the car, he asked Williams, “seriously, bro, what was
going on with my girl? Where did you get her from?” He testified that Williams
immediately unbuckled his seat belt and exited the car. He watched as
Williams ran down the street and into a parked car, and then began banging
on doors further down the street. He told police that Williams was crazy, and
that he jumped out of the car and ran down the street. He denied ever
possessing a gun.
In his first issue on appeal, McPherson contends the court erred in
admitting Williams’s written statement given shortly after the incident. The
trial court has broad discretion over the admissibility of evidence, and we will
not overrule its decision unless the court abused that discretion. See
Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2014). An
-3- J-S25017-18
abuse of the court’s discretion is established if the court was manifestly
unreasonable, partial, biased, or acted with ill-will. See id. Additionally, an
abuse of discretion occurs when the record contains no support for the court’s
decision. See id.
McPherson argues Williams’s written statement constitutes inadmissible
hearsay evidence. “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the
truth of the matter asserted by the declarant.” Commonwealth v. Puksar,
740 A.2d 219, 225 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). The court found the
Commonwealth’s proffer was not for the purpose of proving the truth of
Williams’s assertions against McPherson. Rather, the court concluded the
written statement was entered for the purpose of establishing a prompt
complaint.
The Commonwealth asked Williams if he was familiar with his written
statement. See N.T., 4/26/17, at 21. He acknowledged he was. See id.
Defense counsel objected, arguing it was a hearsay statement. See id., at 22.
After the court overruled the objection, the Commonwealth asked Williams to
authenticate the statement and his signature, which he did. See id., at 22-
23. Williams testified he wrote the statement right after the incident. See id.,
at 23.
The Commonwealth moved the statement into evidence, and
immediately ended its direct examination of Williams. See id., at 23-24. The
contents of the statement were not read to the court. We therefore can find
-4- J-S25017-18
no error in the court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth did not use the
statement to prove the truth of the matter contained in the statement. It was
not an abuse of the court’s broad discretion to conclude the exhibit was
entered merely to establish Williams’s prompt complaint to authorities.
McPherson’s first issue on appeal merits no relief.
Next, McPherson argues the verdicts were against the weight of
evidence presented at trial. We do not review challenges to the weight of the
evidence de novo on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211,
1225 (Pa. 2009). Rather, we only review the trial court’s exercise of its
discretionary judgment regarding the weight of the evidence presented at
trial. See id.
“[W]e may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to
the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v.
Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). A verdict is
said to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice
when “the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or when “the jury’s
verdict, at the time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath,
temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S25017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SAMUEL LANCE MCPHERSON : : Appellant : No. 1228 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 26, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002753-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2018
Samuel McPherson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after
the trial court found him guilty of simple assault and summary harassment
arising from charges he pointed a gun at Eldwin Williams. McPherson argues
the court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to present Williams’s written
statement from the night of the crime. And that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
Williams testified that he met McPherson’s girlfriend, Sylvia Cottom, at
the casino where they had gambled together that night. Around 3:30 a.m.,
Williams gave Cottom a ride to her home. When they arrived, McPherson and
Cottom’s mother were waiting on the porch.
Cottom and McPherson began to argue. While they argued, Cottom’s
mother asked Williams if he could give McPherson a ride to his home, since J-S25017-18
McPherson had missed his bus. Williams agreed to do so, and when McPherson
entered his car, McPherson said, “look here.” McPherson was pointing a gun
at Williams. Williams fled from his car, screaming for help.
At this point in Williams’s testimony, the Commonwealth sought to enter
the written statement Williams gave to police shortly after the incident.
Defense counsel objected, arguing the statement was hearsay, and further,
that the prosecutor was attempting to bolster Williams’s credibility before it
had been challenged. The trial court overruled the objection, and allowed the
written statement to be entered into evidence.
Officer Craig Canella testified that police received a report of a man
banging on a door, yelling that he was going to be shot. Officer Canella
responded to the call and interviewed Williams. After hearing Williams’s story,
he drove to Cottom’s home, where McPherson was sitting on the porch.
Williams’s car was still in the street, with its doors closed and the engine
running. McPherson told the officers that a man had just stopped the car and
started running down the street. No gun was found on McPherson. Cottom’s
mother refused to allow officers into her home to search for a gun.
Officer Canella instructed Williams to move his vehicle, as it was illegally
parked. He also requested that Williams come to the police station the next
day to give a statement. Williams appeared at the station and gave a written
statement at 5:25 a.m.
-2- J-S25017-18
McPherson testified that he received a phone call from Cottom indicating
she was leaving the casino at 1 a.m. that night. He became concerned when
Cottom was not home shortly thereafter. When Williams dropped off Cottom,
he admitted he argued with Cottom about her failure to let him know her
schedule had changed.
Cottom’s mother interrupted, noting that she didn’t want the argument
on her property in the middle of the night. She informed McPherson that
Williams would give him a ride to his home on the other side of town.
McPherson was grateful, noting the long bus ride the trip would otherwise
require.
When he got in the car, he asked Williams, “seriously, bro, what was
going on with my girl? Where did you get her from?” He testified that Williams
immediately unbuckled his seat belt and exited the car. He watched as
Williams ran down the street and into a parked car, and then began banging
on doors further down the street. He told police that Williams was crazy, and
that he jumped out of the car and ran down the street. He denied ever
possessing a gun.
In his first issue on appeal, McPherson contends the court erred in
admitting Williams’s written statement given shortly after the incident. The
trial court has broad discretion over the admissibility of evidence, and we will
not overrule its decision unless the court abused that discretion. See
Commonwealth v. Belani, 101 A.3d 1156, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2014). An
-3- J-S25017-18
abuse of the court’s discretion is established if the court was manifestly
unreasonable, partial, biased, or acted with ill-will. See id. Additionally, an
abuse of discretion occurs when the record contains no support for the court’s
decision. See id.
McPherson argues Williams’s written statement constitutes inadmissible
hearsay evidence. “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the
truth of the matter asserted by the declarant.” Commonwealth v. Puksar,
740 A.2d 219, 225 (Pa. 1999) (citation omitted). The court found the
Commonwealth’s proffer was not for the purpose of proving the truth of
Williams’s assertions against McPherson. Rather, the court concluded the
written statement was entered for the purpose of establishing a prompt
complaint.
The Commonwealth asked Williams if he was familiar with his written
statement. See N.T., 4/26/17, at 21. He acknowledged he was. See id.
Defense counsel objected, arguing it was a hearsay statement. See id., at 22.
After the court overruled the objection, the Commonwealth asked Williams to
authenticate the statement and his signature, which he did. See id., at 22-
23. Williams testified he wrote the statement right after the incident. See id.,
at 23.
The Commonwealth moved the statement into evidence, and
immediately ended its direct examination of Williams. See id., at 23-24. The
contents of the statement were not read to the court. We therefore can find
-4- J-S25017-18
no error in the court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth did not use the
statement to prove the truth of the matter contained in the statement. It was
not an abuse of the court’s broad discretion to conclude the exhibit was
entered merely to establish Williams’s prompt complaint to authorities.
McPherson’s first issue on appeal merits no relief.
Next, McPherson argues the verdicts were against the weight of
evidence presented at trial. We do not review challenges to the weight of the
evidence de novo on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211,
1225 (Pa. 2009). Rather, we only review the trial court’s exercise of its
discretionary judgment regarding the weight of the evidence presented at
trial. See id.
“[W]e may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so contrary to
the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Commonwealth v.
Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted). A verdict is
said to be contrary to the evidence such that it shocks one’s sense of justice
when “the figure of Justice totters on her pedestal,” or when “the jury’s
verdict, at the time of its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath,
temporarily, and causes him to almost fall from the bench, then it is truly
shocking to the judicial conscience.” Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d
575, 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
Here, the only relevant factual dispute concerns McPherson’s actions
after he entered Williams’s car. Williams testified that McPherson pointed a
-5- J-S25017-18
gun at him. McPherson testified that Williams just unbuckled his seat belt and
ran out of the car after McPherson asked him about Cottom. No one else was
in the car to observe these events.1
The court found Williams’s testimony credible, and McPherson’s and
Cottom’s testimony incredible. These credibility determinations are not
shocking in any sense; indeed, they are a core function of any fact-finder in
our legal system. We cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in
refusing to order a new trial. Thus, McPherson’s second issue on appeal merits
no relief.
As McPherson has not established any right to relief on appeal, we affirm
the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Ott joins the memorandum.
President Judge Gantman concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
____________________________________________
1Cottom testified she did not see a gun that night, but did not testify as to what happened inside the car: “[McPherson’s] in the car for like three seconds and then [Williams] just runs out … of the car.” N.T., 4/26/17, at 66.
-6- J-S25017-18
Date: 9/7/2018
-7-