NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN ALEXANDER TARGONSKI, Appellant No. 1758 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 27, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0001453-2012
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 Appellant, John Alexander Targonski, appeals from the judgment of
ng his conviction for criminal trespass and simple assault, respectively. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for criminal trespass. He also claims that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of bad acts that occurred after his altercation with the victim. After careful review, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
The trial court summarized the facts adduced at trial as follows:
This case arises out of an altercation between two college students, [Appellant] and Peter Arsenault, in the hallway of the apartment building where they both resided. The altercation took place in the early morning hours of Thursday on the first week of fall classes at Penn State. Portions of the incident were captured by a hallway surveillance video camera.
The evidence at trial established that shortly after midnight on August 30, 2012, Peter Arsenault returned home to his apartment building to find a bag of trash that was leaking beer sitting in the hallway near his door. [Appellant] and his roommates were hosting another large party across the hallway, the fourth one they had thrown that week. Tired of the noise and mess caused by the parties each night, Arsenault picked up ent, which
triggered [Appellant] and several other partygoers to come into the hallway and confront Arsenault.
The confrontation turned physical and escalated.
[Appellant] shoved Arsenault and punched him in the face repeatedly. While Arsenault was pushed up against his locked apartment door, his roommate Rosan Patel heard commotion, looked out the peephole, and saw Arsenault being punched. As Patel opened the door to let him in, Arsenault tumbled into the n other people,
including [Appellant]. In the apartment, [Appellant] pushed Arsenault into a wall, bounced his head off of a fire extinguisher, and punched him in the face.
Arsenault's roommate eventually succeeded in removing [Appellant] and the others from the apartment and locked the door. For approximately an hour, [Appellant] returned to pound
Arsenault and his roommate went out on their balcony, the balcony wall was pelted with cans and bottles thrown from
apartment to investigate the disturbance.
The officers who arrived on the scene found several males
apartment was full of beer and liquor bottles. The officers asked [Appellant] to provide identification. He left to retrieve his identification but did not return. Officers found him lying in bed, intoxicated but uninjured, and placed him under arrest after a brief struggle. Arsenault was photographed with a bruised and swollen eye. Photographs were taken later of damage to
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 11/7/13, at 1-3.
3
On September 26, 2012, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information charging Appellant with burglary, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), a felony of the first degree; criminal trespass, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a)(1)(i), a felony of the third degree; simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree; and consumption or possession of liquor or malt or brewed beverages by a minor (underage drinking), 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a), a summary offense. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on July 3, 2013. The jury found him guilty of criminal trespass and simple assault, but not guilty of burglary. His simultaneously held bench trial for underage drinking also resulted in a guilty verdict. On August 27, 2013, the trial court sentenced
f
criminal trespass, and a concurrent term of probation of 1 year for the offense of simple assault. The court imposed a $100 fine for the offense of underage drinking.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court then ordered him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal (concise statement). He complied with that order, filing his concise statement on October 21, 2013. The trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 7, 2013. Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:
I.
grabbed by Arsenault, did the Commonwealth fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant possessed the
4
requisite mens rea to be convicted of the felony offense of Criminal Trespass?
II.
conduct and the conduct of his associates after the altercation with Arsenault, where Appellant was charged with no offenses pertaining to conduct after the altercation and the only identifiable purpose of that evidence was to prove that Appellant was a "bully"?
supporting his conviction for criminal trespass. We review sufficiency claims
under the following standard:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
The crime of criminal trespass is defined, in relevant part, as follows:
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately
18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a)(1).
5
Appellant targets his sufficiency claim on the mens rea element(s) of Section 3503(a)(1). Specifically, he argues that the statute requires, and
contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he knowingly entered
lant
We disagree with the trial court based upon the specific circumstances before us. In his concise s Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
¶ he felony
culpability with respect to subsection (a) of Section 3503, as no other subsections of the criminal trespass statute could result in a felony. Furthermore, it was undisputed apartment and that he did not have permission to do so; defense counsel admitted as much during his closing argument. N.T., 7/2/13, at 263. Thus, the only true point of contention at trial with regard to the sufficiency of the
6
the mens rea element(s) of criminal trespass. We decline to find this issue
sufficiency claim was based in his concise statement does not hinder our review in the circumstances of this case. See Taylor v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
unless the failure to raise the
evidence presented at trial did not establish that he knowingly entered ment. The Commonwealth does not dispute this
case that the Commonwealth present any evidence to show an intent to that the
mens rea
absurd and unintended results. He offers the following hypothetical to
illustrate:
Suppose that an earthquake strikes, opening a hole in the floor of the apartment of an upstairs tenant. The upstairs tenant knows that he would be unwelcome in the apartment beneath him. Nonetheless, when he falls through the earthquake-caused hole into the apartment below, can he be said to be guilty of
7
This controversy demands interpretation of the criminal trespass statute. When interpreting any statute, we adhere to the following principles:
construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be
Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). In determining legislative intent, we must
ea Hous. Auth. of County of Chester v. Pa. State Civil , 556 Pa. 621, 730 A.2d 935, 945 (1999). We are not permitted to ignore the language of a statute, nor may we deem any language to be superfluous. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a).
When there is an interpretation available that gives effect to all of the statute's phrases and does not lead to an absurd result, that interpretation must prevail.
Commonwealth v. McCoy, 962 A.2d 1160, 1167-68 (Pa. 2009).
Furthermore,
1928(b)(1); see also Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa.
465, 909 A.2d 1241, 1251 (2006). Of course, the mandate to
principle that the words of a statute must be construed
require this Court to give the words of a penal statute their Commonwealth v. Booth, 564
however, that where ambiguity exists in the language of a penal statute, such language should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the accused. More specifically, where doubt exists concerning the proper scope of a penal statute, it is the accused Id.
McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1168-69.
8
Additional principles are provided by the Crimes Code. For instance,
unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of Section 302 provides even more specific guidance when our interpretation turn upon the requisite level of culpability assigned to the material elements
of an offense:
(a) Minimum requirements of culpability.--Except as provided in section 305 of this title (relating to limitations on scope of culpability requirements), a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.
(c) Culpability required unless otherwise provided.--When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.
(d) Prescribed culpability requirement applies to all material elements.--When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
18 Pa.C.S. § 302.
Here, there are two competing interpretations of the statute in question. in Section 3503(a)(1) does not apply to subsection (a)(1)(i) (the
9
terpretation is
superior for several reasons.
McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1168. The
(a)(1)(i) independently from Section (a)(1). This conflicts with the very structure of the statute, as subsection (a)(1)(i) is contained within Section (a)(1).
there is an interpretation available that gives effect to all of the statute's phrases and does not lead to an absurd result, that McCoy, 962 A.2d at 1168. As illustrated by pretation can lead to
absurd results. Clearly the legislature did not intend to penalize accidental or unintended trespasses as felonies. Moreover, such a reading would
omission to
scope of criminal liability under the criminal trespass statute by permitting mere accidental trespasses, whereas there is a statutory mandate that we strictly construe criminal statutes. We do not consider the terms of this statute ambiguous as to its scope. However, even if the terms were
10
ambiguous, that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of Appellant, because oubt exists concerning the proper scope of a penal statute, it is the McCoy, 962 A.2d at
1169.
Pa.C.S. § 302. Section 302(d) p offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless
provides a mens rea limit) its applicability to the subsequent subsections that define the conduct element(s) of the offense. Thus, Section 302(d) requires that the mens rea shall
Id. It must be said that
any such contrary purpose would unavoidably permit the absurdity of
Id.
Accordingly, we conclude that the mens rea contained in Section 3503(a)(1) also applies to the material element contained in Section 3503(a)(1)(i), such that the statute requires that a
11
The Commonwealth argues that Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d 350 (Pa. Super. 1992), is in conflict with this conclusion. We disagree. First, Schwartz is simply not factually analogous to the present case. In Schwartz, there was testimony that the appellant punched a pane of glass, and that as a result his arm entered the home to which he had no permission to enter. Schwartz, 615 A.2d at 361. Nevertheless, the following passage from the Schwartz is construed by the Commonwealth, when examined out of context
interpretation:
Appellant contends that the Commonwealth did not present any valid evidence to support an intent to enter. No evidence was presented that shows he smashed the window and thrust his arm through the broken pane, appellant argues.
Evidence of this nature did not have to be presented to support a conviction of criminal trespass.
Id. (emphasis added). No citation was provided for this conclusion by the Schwartz Court apart from the statute itself. Notably, too, at no point did the Schwartz trespass statute did not demand a mens rea requirement. Indeed, another interpretation of the highlighted language above makes more sense. When the Schwartz
s claim that the Commonwealth did not present
12
Id. This
reading is consistent with the Schwartz
Id. at 361. Certainly, there appeared to be little doubt that the punch was intentional in the sense that it
demarked by the window and, thus, that he intended his fist and/or arm to See
if the element
involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that Schwartz
decision is also supported by the fact that in the 22 instances in which Schwartz has been cited in subsequent cases, it has never been cited for the proposition that the entry element of the criminal trespass statute does not require an intent or mens rea element. Thus, we conclude that Schwartz etation, and has simply been misinterpreted by the Commonwealth.
We must now address, of course, whether there was sufficient
conclude that there was not. The undisputed facts at trial reveal that
entry into the apartment was
13
involuntary. There was no evidence presented that Appellant had any intention of entering Appe roommate opened the door.
However, the criminal trespass statute does not limit itself to situations where a defendant knowingly enters a place that he is not licensed or privileged to do so. A conviction can also be obtained where a defendant
question. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a)(1)(i). Nevertheless, we conclude that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence supporting either of these two alternatives.
instance, as is obvious from the manner in which Appellant entered
accurately representing the evidence, the Commonwealth overlooks the qua
surreptitiously, as no evidence supporting that theory was presented at trial and, in fact, the trial evidence directly contradicted such a theory. There was nothing remotely secretive or stealthy about the manner in which
14
Appellant remained in the apartment. See The American Heritage Dictionary 827 (4th
As Appellant was also convicted of simple assault and underage drinking, we move on to address his remaining claim(s). Appellant argues
from A this claim, in part, when he filed a pre-trial motion in limine exclude evidence that, following the altercation and after Appellant had ant and his associates pounded on the
Id. at 10.
These issues arose again during the course of the trial.
We review claims of evidentiary error under the following standard:
The admission of evidence is solely within the province of the trial court, and a decision thereto will not be disturbed absent a
merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-
Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 155-56 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
15
Initially, we must note that Appellant is actually raising multiple claims of error concerning each act of misconduct that occurred after he was ese multiple claims can be distilled
and, second, the misconduct of his associates. Both sets of claims are governed by Pa.R.E. 404(b).
dence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence Id.
apparently bashi
Arsenault and his roommate corroborating the video evidence and their recollection of the verbal threats issued by Appellant during that time. The trial court determined that this evidence was admissible because it was -defense in
16
committing the offenses but that he knew what he was doing and intended t 5. The court also found this evidence admissible res gestae exception, as the conduct was clearly related in Id.
We discern no abuse of discretion with the admission of this evidence.
acting in self- after he was removed from Arsenault and/or intent that contradicted his self-defense theory.
404(b). Rule 404(b
haracter, as the evidence
The trial court described how this matter arose at trial as follows:
Arsenault's roommate Rosan Patel, in testifying about what he witnessed in the hallway and in the apartment, referred several
that Patel's testimony about the group action was irrelevant to [Appellant]'s guilt and could improperly attribute conduct of others to [Appellant]. The Court gave the following response
[the prosecutor] wants to focus in specifically on conduct that allegedly was committed by your client, she will here in a moment, but at this point in time I think you all understand he is
17
(Trial Transcript at p. 112-113.) In the testimony that followed, Patel clarified which actions he observed by [Appellant] in particular. Any confusion created by Patel's earlier testimony was cured by the Court's admonishment and the subsequent testimony by Patel.
TCO, at 7.
We discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court with
to be attributed to Appellant. Moreover, the trial court cannot be said to have improperly admitted that evidence under Rule 404(b)(2), because the evidence did not fall within the purview of that rule. If anything, the evidence was objectionable as irrelevant. Although Appellant raised a relevancy objection to this evidence at trial, he has limited his argument in his brief to its admissibility under Rule 404. Accordingly, he has waived the claim that such evidence was irrelevant by failing to raise it in his brief.
ith regard to
his conviction for criminal trespass is meritorious but that his evidentiary
trespass, but affirm the judgment of sentence with respect to his conviction for simple assault.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Panella joins in the memorandum.
Judge Bowes files a concurring and dissenting memorandum.
18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/2014