Com. v. Mastromonaco, R. ( 2015 )

J. S76009/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
RONALD R. MASTROMONACO, : No. 448 WDA 2014
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 27, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-CR-0011937-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND OLSON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 21, 2015
Appellant challenges the judgment of sentence entered January 27,
2014, on the sole basis that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Finding no merit, we affirm.
Appellant was charged with simple assault and harassment based upon
an incident that occurred on August 1, 2013, in White Oak Borough.1 The
trial court accurately summarized the evidence at trial:
After returning home from having dinner and
drinks with a friend, the victim in this case,
Rhonda Lawther, was confronted at her residence by
the defendant, her ex-boyfriend. Ms. Lawther
testified that she had consumed about three beers
over a two hour period. Although Ms. Lawther and
the defendant were no longer having a romantic
relationship, both Ms. Lawther and the defendant
had been staying at the residence. Ms. Lawther
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(1) and 2709(a)(1), respectively
J. S76009/14
testified at trial that the defendant had been sending
her numerous text messages throughout the night
while she was having dinner. She described the text
messages as “tormenting”. Upon arriving back at
her residence, she and the defendant soon got into
an argument. During the argument, according to
Ms. Lawther, the defendant struck her with a
backhand across the face. The police were called to
the residence. Officer Sargent from the White Oak
Borough Police Department responded to the scene.
Upon arriving at the residence, he observed
Ms. Lawther applying ice to her face and it appeared
as though she had an injured lip. Ms. Lawther
testified that she suffered a bruise as a result of
being struck by the defendant.
The defendant also testified at trial. He
testified that he did have an argument with
Ms. Lawther on the evening in question. He
testified, however, that he never struck her. He
testified that she was the one who was sending text
messages to him, calling him a “liar” and a “cheat”.
He testified that he had received information from
their landlord that Ms. Lawther and the defendant
were going to be evicted from the residence. He
believed the landlord was going to their residence to
take pictures of the residence. He testified that he
called his current girlfriend and directed her to call
the police because he did not want the landlord
coming to the residence.
Trial court opinion, 7/19/14 at 1-2.
Following the conclusion of a bench trial on January 27, 2014, the
court found appellant not guilty of simple assault, but guilty of harassment.
The court immediately imposed a sentence of 90 days’ probation with costs
and conditions.2
2
Appellant was required to complete a Batterer’s Intervention Program and
to have no contact with the victim.
-2-
J. S76009/14
As noted, the only issue raised on appeal is whether the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. We observe our standard of review:
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.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 319, 744
A.2d 745, 751-52 (2000); Commonwealth v.
Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 435, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189
(1994). 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. Widmer, 560 Pa. at 319-20,
744 A.2d at 752. 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.’” Id. at 320, 744 A.2d at
752 (citation omitted). 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.” Brown, 538 Pa. at 435, 648
A.2d at 1189.
An appellate court’s standard of review when
presented with a weight of the evidence claim is
distinct from the standard of review applied by the
trial court:
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. Brown, 648
A.2d at 1189. 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 that the verdict is
-3-
J. S76009/14
against the weight of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467
Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa.1976). One of
the least assailable reasons for granting
or denying a new trial is the lower court’s
conviction that the verdict was or was
not against the weight of the evidence
and that a new trial should be granted in
the interest of justice.
Widmer, 560 Pa. at 321-22, 744 A.2d at 753(emphasis added).
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-1055 (Pa. 2013).
In its opinion, the trial court identified the correct standard by which it
was to assess the weight of the evidence (“so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one’s sense of justice”). (Trial court opinion, 7/19/14 at 3.) The trial
court provided this analysis:
Essentially, the defendant challenges this Court’s
assessment of the credibility of the trial witnesses.
As set forth above, after considering and weighing all
the evidence, the Court concluded that the
Commonwealth’s witnesses at trial, Ms. Lawther and
Officer Sargent were credible and truthful concerning
all essential material facts. This determination is
afforded deference. The Commonwealth’s evidence
established that the defendant and the victim had an
argument and the defendant struck Ms. Lawther in
the face. Officer Sargent observed the injury to the
victim’s face. This evidence supported the verdict.
This Court has reviewed the trial record and believes
that the verdict does not shock any rational sense of
justice. The verdict was not against the weight of
the evidence.
Trial court opinion, 7/19/14 at 3-4.
-4-
J. S76009/14
The trial court employed the correct standard and properly found that
the Commonwealth’s witnesses were credible. We see no abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s analysis. Consequently, we find no error on
appeal and will affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/21/2015
-5-