Com. v. Catchings, E. ( 2022 )

J-A03022-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ESET CATCHINGS :
:
Appellant : No. 698 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0004750-2019
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2022
Appellant, Eset Catchings, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the court
convicted her of Third-Degree Murder and Possession of an Instrument of
Crime (“PIC”). Appellant asserts that she acted in self-defense and, therefore,
her convictions are contrary to the weight of the evidence. After careful
review, we affirm.
On January 18, 2019, Appellant stabbed and killed her roommate and
sexual partner, Rodney Bond (“Victim”). At the time, Victim was also in a
romantic relationship with Aaron Smith.
On the date of the murder, Appellant and Victim were engaged in a
physical altercation at their home. In an attempt to extricate himself from the
altercation, Victim contacted Smith and asked Smith to come pick him up.
When Smith arrived, Appellant and Victim were “fighting, punching, grabbing,
J-A03022-22
[and] shoving” each other on the front porch. N.T. Trial, 9/21/20, at 30. Smith
broke up the fight, at which point Appellant returned inside. Shortly after,
Victim returned inside to pack clothing and leftover food to take to Smith’s.
The argument between Victim and Appellant continued during the
packing process. At some point, Victim walked from his upstairs bedroom,
down the steps, and toward the front door to leave. Appellant followed,
“attempting to reach over Smith and punch [Victim]. Smith intervened to keep
[Appellant] separated from [Victim].” Trial Ct. Op., 6/29/21, at 3. Then, as
Victim walked toward the front door, Appellant jumped on his back and
stabbed him in the chest with a steak knife, killing him.
When police arrived at the scene, they found the front door ajar and a
bookbag and leftover food container on the front porch. While processing the
crime scene, investigators found a steak knife with a black handle on the living
room floor. Testing revealed that the knife contained Victim’s blood and
Appellant’s DNA. Testing also showed that Victim’s fingernail clippings did not
contain Appellant’s DNA. Additionally, investigators collected swabs of
Appellant’s blood from the walls and floors of the living and dining rooms, the
exterior of the front door, and the floor of Appellant’s bedroom.
Dr. Victoria Sorokin of the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s office
conducted an autopsy on Victim. Dr. Sorokin concluded that Victim died from
a stab wound to the chest. The wound was five and a half inches deep, angled
downward, and was three quarters of an inch away from Victim’s heart. Victim
also had a two-inch-deep stab wound to the right thigh.
-2-
J-A03022-22
Appellant’s bench trial began on September 21, 2020. Appellant and the
Commonwealth stipulated to the autopsy results, and the results of the
forensic testing on the steak knife and Appellant’s fingernail clippings. The
Commonwealth presented testimony from five witnesses, including
Philadelphia Police Officer Clyde Frasier, who testified to the blood splatter
testing results. Additionally, Smith testified on behalf of the Commonwealth
regarding his first-hand account of Victim’s killing; his testimony was
consistent with the above-stated facts.
Appellant testified on her own behalf. In sum, she averred that she was
asleep in bed on the evening of January 18, 2019, when Victim returned home
from work. Victim became angry with Appellant because Appellant did not
purchase juice at the grocery store. Victim “yanked” Appellant out of her bed,
down the stairs, and outside, where he punched and kicked her in the face.
When Appellant got away and ran back inside, Victim went inside after her
and began to choke her. Victim found a steak knife nearby and used it to stab
Victim in the chest in self-defense. See N.T. Trial, 9/22/20, at 18-35.
The trial court did not find Appellant’s testimony credible. See id. at
101-02 (calling Appellant’s testimony “pretty farfetched” and concluding that
Appellant’s “story just doesn’t make sense to the court.”). It specifically found
that Appellant “was the aggressor in the case” and, therefore, that she was
not acting in self-defense when she stabbed Victim. Id. at 102. Based on these
findings, the court convicted Appellant of the above crimes. On December 4,
2020, the court sentenced Appellant to 15 to 30 years’ incarceration.
-3-
J-A03022-22
Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion seeking a new trial based,
inter alia, on her assertion that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, Appellant filed a timely
Notice of Appeal, and both she and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court’s finding that she did
not act in self-defense when she killed Victim is contrary to the weight of the
evidence.1 Appellant’s Br. at 39-66. Appellant asserts that she was “the victim
of an unprovoked attack” and “had to stab [Victim] to get him off of her.” Id.
at 43, 50. In support, Appellant credits her own testimony that she was
blameless in the altercation with Victim, and discredits Smith’s testimony
because it “makes no sense[.]” Id. at 47. See also id. at 46 (recognizing a
“conflict in the testimony” between Appellant and Smith and urging this Court
to discredit Smith’s testimony because it “makes almost no sense at all.”).
Appellant ultimately concludes that, since the weight of the evidence proved
her self-defense claim, the court should have found her not guilty of Third-
Degree Murder and PIC. Id. at 43, 64.
____________________________________________
1 Appellant also purports to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. In
support, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by crediting the
Commonwealth’s evidence, proving that Appellant was the aggressor in her
altercation with Appellant, over Appellant’s testimony that she acted in self-
defense. See Appellant’s Br. at 39-57. This argument goes to the weight of
the evidence, not its sufficiency. See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d
745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000) (delineating distinctions between claims challenging
the sufficiency and weight of the evidence). As a result, we address this issue
a as a challenge to the weight of the evidence.
-4-
J-A03022-22
“The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is
free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and to determine the
credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545
(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “Resolving contradictory testimony and
questions of credibility are matters for the factfinder.” Commonwealth v.
Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000). It is well-settled that we
cannot substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Talbert, supra at
546.
Further, appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the trial court’s
exercise of discretion in denying the weight challenge raised in the post-
sentence motion; this court does not review the underlying question of
whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 545-46. “In
order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence,
the evidence must be so tenuous, vague[,] and uncertain that the verdict
shocks the conscience of the court.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). As our Supreme Court has made clear, reversal is only appropriate
“where the facts and inferences disclose a palpable abuse of discretion[.]”
Commonwealth v. Morales, 91 A.3d 80, 91 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s challenge involves her claim of self-defense. To prove self-
defense, the individual must have (1) reasonably believed that force was
necessary to protect herself against death or serious bodily injury; (2) been
free from fault in provoking the altercation that culminated in the killing; and
(3) not violated any duty to retreat. Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d
-5-
J-A03022-22
632, 640 (Pa. Super. 2017). Once a defendant claims self-defense, the
Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving it and can do so by, inter alia,
proving that the defendant was not free from fault in provoking or continuing
the altercation. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 740 (Pa. 2012).
In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court reiterated its finding that
Appellant’s testimony lacked credibility. Trial Ct. Op. at 12. In reviewing its
credibility finding, the court explained that the Commonwealth’s evidence
disproved Appellant’s self-defense claim:
In this case, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth and
accepted by the [c]ourt was sufficient to sustain the verdict and
to disprove [Appellant’s] claim of self-defense beyond a
reasonable doubt. The testimony of Aaron Smith, along with the
corroborating forensic evidence established that [Appellant]
initiated and escalated a physical altercation despite [Victim’s]
attempts to leave the house and end the argument. The evidence
presented by the Commonwealth contradicted [Appellant’s]
testimony that [Victim] had been choking her at the moment of
the stabbing.
Id. at 9. The court concluded that Appellant was the aggressor in the
altercation with Victim and, consistent with Smith’s testimony and the forensic
evidence, Appellant stabbed Victim as Victim attempted to leave their home:
The [c]ourt [] credited the evidence presented by the
Commonwealth [to conclude that] ‘what makes more sense is this
happened at the door. That is where the blood spatter is, that
[Appellant] was on the back of [Victim], that makes sense with
where the wound is and that [Appellant] was the aggressor in this
case.’
-6-
J-A03022-22
Id. at 12. Since Appellant was the aggressor in the altercation with Victim,
she was not free from fault in provoking or continuing the altercation and, as
a result, Appellant’s self-defense claim failed. Id. at 9, 12.
The record supports the trial court’s finding. Smith’s testimony
established that Appellant jumped on Victim’s back and stabbed Victim as
Victim attempted to leave their home and extricate himself from the conflict.
N.T. Trial, 9/21/20, at 35-36 (testifying that Victim was “trying to get out the
door and [Appellant] jumped on his back”); 36 (Appellant “looked like she was
reaching around, punching [Victim]” while on his back); 38-39 (once Appellant
got off Victim’s back, Victim “started walking, stumbling toward the dining
room and he fell.”); 39 (once Victim fell, Smith “saw the blood and [] called
the police.”). The forensic evidence, particularly Victim’s blood on the exterior
of the front door, supported Smith’s testimony that Appellant stabbed Victim
as Victim was attempting to leave the home. Id. at 111. The court found that
Appellant’s contrary testimony lacked credibility. Id. at 101-02.
Appellant essentially asks us to usurp the fact-finder’s credibility
determination and credit her testimony over the Commonwealth’s evidence,
particularly Smith’s testimony, to find that she killed Victim in self-defense.
We cannot and will not do so. See Talbert, supra at 546. We discern no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion the verdict was not against
the weight of the evidence. As a result, we affirm.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
-7-
J-A03022-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/25/2022
-8-