Com. v. Bradshaw, T. ( 2015 )

J-A31027-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TYLER MITCHELL BRADSHAW
Appellant No. 114 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-21-CR-0003479-2012
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2015
Tyler Mitchell Bradshaw appeals from the judgment of sentence,
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, after a jury
trial in which he was convicted of second-degree murder,1 robbery,2 and
conspiracy to commit these crimes.3 Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the facts of this matter as follows:
On November 18, 2012, between approximately 10:00 and
11:00 p.m., Sergeant Todd Lindsay of the Silver Spring
Township Police Department was dispatched to the Hess Station
at 7034 Carlisle Pike, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 903.
J-A31027-15
County. Upon arriving at the Hess Station, Sergeant Lindsay
was directed behind the counter where he found Linda Ness, the
store clerk, with blood on her face. Paramedics arrived at the
Hess Station shortly after Sergeant Lindsay, and Miss Ness was
determined to be deceased.
In an effort to determine the circumstances which led to Miss
Ness’s death, Sergeant Lindsay reviewed a soundless
surveillance video. The video, according to Sergeant Lindsay,
shows an individual entering the Hess Station. The individual
briefly engages in conversation with someone off to his right,
presumably Miss Ness, and then leaves the store. Shortly
thereafter, two individuals dressed in black, wearing masks and
gloves, enter the store. They approach the counter with one
behind the other. The individual closest to the counter lifts up
his shirt with his right hand [and] pulls a gun from his waistband
with his left hand. Although Miss Ness is not fully visible in the
video at this point, the tips of her fingers come into view. He
then proceeds to point, either at the register or at Miss Ness,
with his finger and then with the gun, alternating between the
two. Miss Ness then suddenly collapses to the ground and the
two individuals leave the store.
On November 20, 2012, an autopsy was performed on Miss Ness
by Dr. Johnson, a forensic pathologist, at the Lehigh Valley
Medical Center. During the autopsy, three bullet fragments were
recovered from Miss Ness, and Dr. Johnson determined that the
cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the neck and
chest.
Officer Seth Weikert, Silver Spring Township Police Department,
and Detective Les Freehling of the Cumberland County Criminal
Investigation Division interviewed co-defendant Shante Rice.
Mr. Rice explained that he was the first individual seen on the
video surveillance to enter the Hess Station and that, after
leaving the store, he passed the two individuals that next
entered the store. Mr. Rice admitted providing the gun to the
shooter approximately an hour before the shooting. Mr. Rice
said that he and three other individuals planned the robbery at
the Hess Station approximately five minutes before stopping
there.
[Bradshaw] also was interviewed as a suspect. That interview
was conducted by the lead investigator, Detective Jared Huff of
the Silver Spring Township Police Department, and Detective
-2-
J-A31027-15
Richard Keefer of the Cumberland County Criminal Investigation
Division. [Bradshaw], like Mr. Rice, admitted that he and three
other individuals discussed robbing the Hess Station on the
Carlisle Pike prior to arriving there. He also admitted that he
and one of the other three individuals entered the Hess Station
together, with [Bradshaw] entering first. Once inside,
[Bradshaw] approached the counter and pointed a gun at Miss
Ness, telling her to turn around and get the money. He then
shot Miss Ness, fatally injuring her. According to [Bradshaw],
the gun just went off. After Miss Ness collapsed, [Bradshaw]
and the other individual left the store empty handed.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/26/15, 2-4.
Bradshaw was convicted on September 11, 2014 and sentenced on
December 16, 2014. In addition to a sentence of life imprisonment for
second-degree murder, the court imposed concurrent sentences of ten to
twenty years’ incarceration for conspiracy to commit murder, and five to ten
years’ incarceration each for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.
This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Bradshaw raises the following issues for our review:
[1.] The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that [first-
degree murder] and [second-degree murder] carr[y] the same
penalty when the death penalty is withdrawn.
[2.] The trial court erred in not allowing sufficient cross-
examination of the co-defendants [who] testified against
[Bradshaw] under a “deal” for a lesser offense.
Brief of Appellant, at 7.
In his first issue, Bradshaw claims that the trial court erred by not
instructing the jury that the penalty for first-degree or second-degree
murder would be identical in his case. Our standard of review regarding jury
instructions involves deference to the trial court, and we will reverse the
-3-
J-A31027-15
court’s decision only if it abused its discretion or committed an error of law.
Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783, 798-99 (Pa. 2009).
We note that in order to preserve a claim regarding erroneous jury
instructions, a specific objection must be made at trial. Commonwealth v.
Parker, 104 A.3d 17, 29 (Pa. Super. 2014) appeal denied, 117 A.3d 296(Pa. 2015); see Pa.R.Crim.P. 647(C) (“No portion of the charge nor
omissions from the charge may be assigned as error, unless specific
objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate.”). Indeed,
“the mere submission and subsequent denial of proposed points for charge
that are inconsistent with or omitted from the instructions actually given will
not suffice to preserve an issue, absent a specific objection or exception to
the charge.” Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220, 225 (Pa. 2005).
Even if an appellant objects to an instruction during the charging conference,
this Court has found the issue waived if there is no objection after the actual
instructions have been given. See Parker, supra, at 29.
Instantly, the record reveals that during the charging conference,
Bradshaw’s counsel requested a jury instruction indicating that the penalty
for first-degree or second-degree murder would be identical in this matter.
The court denied this request, to which counsel indicated that “[he would]
make an objection.” N.T. Trial, 9/10/14, at 194. However, after the jury
was given instructions, which did not include the requested instruction
-4-
J-A31027-15
regarding penalties, Bradshaw’s counsel did not raise the issue again. Thus,
this issue is waived.4 Pressley, supra; Parker, supra.
Bradshaw next asserts that the trial court did not permit adequate
cross-examination of his co-defendant, Brandon Mathna,5 regarding a plea
agreement he may have made with the Commonwealth. “The scope and the
manner of cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will not be overturned unless the court has abused that
discretion.” Commonwealth v. Nunn, 947 A.2d 756, 761 (Pa. Super.
2008). The scope of cross-examination generally includes “inferences,
deductions, or conclusions which may be drawn therefrom, which explain or
destroy the effect of direct testimony.” Id. at 762. In particular,
[when] a prosecution witness may be biased in favor of the
prosecution because of outstanding criminal charges or because
of any non-final criminal disposition against him within the same
jurisdiction, that possible bias, in fairness, must be made known
to the jury. Even if the prosecutor has made no promises, either
on the present case or on other pending criminal matters, the
witness may hope for favorable treatment from the prosecutor if
____________________________________________
4
Moreover, even if counsel had preserved this issue, we note that the
argument that the instruction should have been permitted is without merit,
since “[p]unishment is a matter solely for the court and not for the jury to
know or to consider during its deliberations.” Commonwealth v. Waters,
483 A.2d 855, 860 (Pa. Super. 1984) (citing Commonwealth v. Lucier,
225 A.2d 890 (Pa. 1967)).
5
Bradshaw states the issue as objecting to limits on the cross-examination
of two co-defendants, Christian Conway and Mathna. However, argument
has been developed only as to Mathna. Moreover, counsel stated that he
was satisfied with what he was able to elicit during cross-examination of
Conway. See N.T. Trial, 9/9/14, at 100.
-5-
J-A31027-15
the witness presently testifies in a way that is helpful to the
prosecution. [I]f that possibility exists, the jury should know
about it.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 647 A.2d 907, 912 (Pa Super. 1994).
Bradshaw’s counsel had the following exchange with Mathna:
[By Mr. Abeln:]
Q: What -- what promise or anything did you get from the
Commonwealth to have you come here today and tell them
what you say is true?
A: I have just come here so maybe after this I could have
some leniency in my overall --
Q: All right. Let’s talk about that. What -- what do you
describe as leniency?
A: Less than what the total end could be.
Q: Less than what?
A: My total sentence could be.
Q: Less than what your total sentence could be?
A: Yeah. Like, the maximum.
...
Q: What did [First Assistant District Attorney] Keating tell
you if you testified today or whoever from the District
Attorney’s Office?
A: Just that if I do this that they may -- might show me
mercy in the end when my time comes to be sentenced.
Q: Did you ask him what mercy meant?
A: Just as I said, not the maximum sentence, like, the
overall, the main I can get.
N.T. Trial, 9/9/14, at 134-35. Counsel next asked Mathna what he thought
the maximum sentence would be, to which the Commonwealth objected.
-6-
J-A31027-15
The Court sustained the objection as to the form of the question, and
provided the following guidance:
The Court: . . . You may ask if he was promised a specific length
of the sentence or a general ballpark of what his sentence would
be. Length.
You may not get into anything that includes what the penalties,
maximum penalties are for the offenses that are charged. And
you are not to be leading down that direction to elicit that. You
have already taken that bite once or twice.
Id. at 138-39. Counsel resumed questioning Mathna:
By Mr. Abeln:
Q: I’m going to clarify my last question to you. Were you
promised anything by the Commonwealth as to what the
length of your sentence would be if you testified?
A: No.
Mr. Abeln: Okay. That’s all I have, Your Honor.
Id. at 140.
Bradshaw argues that the maximum penalty was relevant for the
purpose of impeaching Mathna and should have been permitted to be
discussed during the above exchange. However, as the trial court noted:
In the absence of an agreement between Mr. Mathna and the
Commonwealth, the maximum penalty for the charges against
Mr. Mathna was not pertinent to Attorney Abeln’s attempt to
impeach Mr. Mathna’s credibility. The maximum penalty may
have been relevant had Mr. Mathna already entered into an
agreement with the Commonwealth for a particular sentence as
it would have informed the jury as to the extent and generosity
of that agreement. . . . Additionally, by circumscribing Attorney
Abeln’s questioning of Mr. Mathna, we wished to insure that he
did not attempt to circumvent our ruling excluding reference to
the potential penalties faced by [Bradshaw] by introducing those
penalties through the testimony of Mr. Mathna.
-7-
J-A31027-15
Trial Court Opinion, 3/26/15, at 11.
The trial court correctly notes that Mathna had no specific agreement
with the Commonwealth that would have made a maximum penalty relevant
in comparison to the length of his sentence. Moreover, the jury was
permitted to hear testimony of the possibility that Mathna could receive
leniency in his sentence, as mandated in Smith, supra. Finally, the trial
court’s decision to curb testimony to avoid the introduction of specific
penalties is also sound. Waters, supra. Thus, we discern no error in the
trial court’s rulings during Mathna’s cross-examination.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/16/2015
-8-