Com. v. Braswell, E. ( 2018 )

J-S63022-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ELWOOD C. BRASWELL :
:
Appellant : No. 324 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 13, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Forest County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-27-CR-0000037-2013
BEFORE: OTT, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 29, 2018
Elwood C. Braswell (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after a jury convicted him of criminal homicide and related offenses.
We affirm.1
____________________________________________
1 As we discuss infra, this is Appellant’s second direct appeal. In his first
counseled appeal, this Court held that the sole issue was waived for failure to
preserve it, and subsequently Appellant’s post-sentence and direct appeal
rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc. See Commonwealth v. Rosado, 150
A.3d 425, 434 (Pa. 2016) (holding that “the filing of an appellate brief which
abandons all preserved issues in favor of unpreserved ones constitutes
ineffective assistance of counsel per se”); Commonwealth v. Braswell, 86
WDA 2017 (unpublished memorandum) (Aug. 8, 2017).
Further, we note that in this appeal, Appellant purported to appeal from the
February 6, 2018 order denying his post-sentence motion. “However, ‘[i]n a
criminal action, an appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence made
final by the denial of post-sentence motions.’ Therefore, we have corrected
the caption accordingly.” Commonwealth v. Beeman, 847 A.2d 87 n.1 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63022-18
Sometime in the early morning hours of August 22, 2012, Appellant,
who was an inmate at SCI Forest, killed his cellmate, Frederick Kirkland (the
victim). Appellant admitted to the killing. As a result, the Commonwealth
charged Appellant with criminal homicide, aggravated assault, aggravated
harassment by a prisoner, and abuse of a corpse.2
The case proceeded to a jury trial on August 26, 2013. The
Commonwealth presented evidence that at 5:25 a.m. on August 22, 2012,
Corrections Officer (CO) Curt Klawuhn and Nurse Eileen Summers went to
Appellant and the victim’s cell to administer medication to the victim. N.T.
Trial, 8/26/13, at 53, 67-68. The victim was lying on the bottom bunkbed,
covered with a sheet. Id. at 54-55, 68-70. In an “upbeat” manner, Appellant
told the CO and Nurse Summers that the victim could not take his medication
because Appellant killed him. Id. at 54, 68. Appellant further stated that
Appellant “was god” and “wanted his power,” and thus killed the victim, and
now possessed the victim’s powers. Id. at 54, 69. Appellant’s tone was
“conversational” and he appeared “happy” and was “laughing.” Id. at 56, 70.
Later that morning, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Jason Wagner
and Corporal Charles Dominic conducted a videotaped interview of Appellant.
N.T. Trial, 8/26/13, at 219. When Appellant was informed that the victim
died, he “got to his feet[,] jumped in the air and [said] I did it.” Id. at 221.
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 2702(a)(1), 2703.1, 5510.
-2-
J-S63022-18
Appellant told the officers that he woke at 1:40 a.m. and “decided he was
going to kill his cell mate.” Id. at 222-223. Appellant then woke the victim
and told him that the nurse was there with his medication, and the victim got
up. Id. at 224. “[C]oncerned that someone in the neighboring cell may hear
some noise,” Appellant flushed the toilet and then punched the victim in the
head. Id. at 224-225. The victim asked Appellant why he punched him, and
Appellant punched him four more times. When the victim fell, Appellant
“stomp[ed on] him.” Id. at 226-227. Appellant placed a pillow over the
victim’s face and sat on the pillow for approximately 20 minutes until the
victim stopped breathing and moving. Id. at 228-230. Appellant then
punched the victim’s face “multiple” times, before putting a sheet around the
victim’s neck and attempting to strangle him. Id. at 230.
Appellant further told the officers that he “moved [the victim’s] body
around a couple times” and ultimately placed the victim in the bottom bunk.
N.T. Trial, 8/26/13, at 233. Appellant urinated and defecated on the victim,
and used a sock filled with bars of soap to strike the victim’s head five times.
Id. at 234. Appellant also removed the victim’s “drawers and diaper,” put a
chicken bone and a pen in the victim’s anus, and attempted to bite off the
victim’s penis. Id. at 236, 245. Appellant covered the victim with a blanket
because he knew that prison “staff members would be making the rounds.”
Id. at 235, 237. Finally, Appellant “attempted to clean up the corner of the
cell.” Id. at 235.
-3-
J-S63022-18
As to why Appellant attacked the victim, Appellant told the officers that
“he was tired of carrying his cellie’s weight” and that he “believed he was god
and he wanted [the victim’s] powers.” N.T. Trial, 8/26/13, at 238. Appellant
“indicated that he was happy that he did it.” Id. at 239. He did not seem
confused or disoriented, and although “[a]t times he spoke very rapidly,” his
explanation of the details was “very clear.” Id. at 240. Following an autopsy,
a forensic pathologist determined that the victim died of asphyxiation, with
“blunt force trauma to the head also play[ing] a role.” Id. at 187.
Appellant presented an insanity defense. He did not testify, but
presented an expert witness, Dr. Safdar Chaudhary, a psychiatrist. Dr.
Chaudhary interviewed Appellant approximately six months after the incident,
and reviewed his criminal record, the videotape of his statement to Trooper
Wagner and Corporal Dominic, and the police report. N.T. Trial, 8/26/13, at
268, 277, 338. Dr. Chaudhary also obtained Appellant’s medical records
several days before trial, but stated that the records did not factor into his
report. Id. at 269, 332. Appellant initially told Dr. Chaudhary that he did not
hear voices, but later stated that he heard “voices all the time.” Id. at 311.
Dr. Chaudhary diagnosed Appellant with schizophrenia/paranoid type, which
the doctor characterized as having “delusions of persecution or grandeur,” or
a “feeling that a person has some kind of supernatural power.” Id. at 271,
273-274. Dr. Chaudhary opined that at the time of the offense, Appellant was
legally insane, “was suffering from an acute psychotic behavior,” and was
-4-
J-S63022-18
unable “to tell the difference between right and wrong” due to his mental
illness. Id. at 309, 330, 355. Dr. Chaudhary further opined that Appellant
did not have a rational mind or a rational motive when he killed the victim.
Id. at 330.
On cross-examination, Dr. Chaudhary acknowledged that by flushing
the toilet so that others could not hear him, and cleaning up the cell and
covering the victim with a blanket, Appellant “planned” and knew he needed
to hide or cover up what he was doing. N.T. Trial, 8/26/13, at 335-336. Dr.
Chaudhary also testified that if someone were attempting to “fake . . . a
disease [or] disorder,” he would ask that person many questions about his
symptoms. Id. at 340-341. Dr. Chaudhary then acknowledged that when he
asked Appellant about hearing voices, Appellant “said that he didn’t know”
and that Appellant “wasn’t quite committed to even responding to that
question.” Id. at 341.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty but mentally ill on the counts of
criminal homicide, aggravated assault, and abuse of a corpse, but found
Appellant not guilty of aggravated harassment by a prisoner. On September
13, 2013, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without
parole for homicide, a consecutive 10 to 20 years of imprisonment for
aggravated assault, and a consecutive 1 to 2 years of imprisonment for abuse
of a corpse.
Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion or direct appeal. On April
-5-
J-S63022-18
30, 2014, he filed a timely petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act
(PCRA).3 Raymond Rockwell, Esquire, was appointed to represent Appellant.
Attorney Rockwell filed an amended PCRA petition seeking reinstatement of
Appellant’s direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. The PCRA court4 granted relief,
and Appellant appealed, raising a single claim: whether the jury’s verdict of
guilty but mentally ill was against the weight of the evidence. Noting that
Appellant had not sought, and was not granted, reinstatement of his post-
sentence rights nunc pro tunc, this Court concluded that Appellant’s weight
claim was waived for failure to raise it before the trial court. Thus, on August
8, 2017, this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. Braswell, supra.
On September 1, 2017, Appellant filed a timely “first” pro se PCRA
petition, averring that Attorney Rockwell provided ineffective assistance of
counsel. See Commonwealth v. Karanicolas, 836 A.2d 940, 944 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (“When a petitioner is granted a direct appeal nunc pro tunc in
his first PCRA petition, a subsequent PCRA petition is considered a first PCRA
petition for timeliness purposes.”). The PCRA court appointed present
counsel, Pamela Logsdon Sibley, Esquire, to represent Appellant, and she filed
a motion to reinstate Appellant’s post-sentence and appellate rights nunc pro
tunc. The PCRA court granted relief.
____________________________________________
3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9545.
4 The PCRA judge also presided at Appellant’s trial.
-6-
J-S63022-18
On October 27, 2017, Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, again
challenging the weight of the evidence. After hearing argument on January
30, 2018, the court on February 6, 2018, issued an order and opinion denying
the motion. Appellant timely appealed. Appellant complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), and the trial court issued an additional opinion on April 30, 2018.
Appellant raises two related issues:
Whether the verdict of guilty but mentally ill is against the weight
of the evidence when a qualified psychiatric expert testified that
[Appellant] is legally insane, the Commonwealth does not rebut
said expert testimony, and numerous Commonwealth witnesses
testify to behavior demonstrating [Appellant’s] insanity.
Whether the judge abuses her discretion by failing to order a new
trial when [Appellant] has been found guilty but mentally ill after
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at
the time the offense was committed.
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
Appellant first alleges that he proved by a preponderance of the
evidence — “‘the lowest of standards’ of proof” — that he was insane at the
time of the incident, and thus the jury’s verdicts of guilty but mentally ill are
against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 14. Appellant avers that the jury
“completely disregard[ed] the overwhelming evidence of insanity,” including
Dr. Chaudhary’s unequivocal testimony that Appellant suffered from
schizophrenia/paranoid type, exhibited “an extremely bizarre delusional
system,” and “there was no indication that [Appellant] was malingering or
falsely portraying himself as insane.” Id. at 14-15. Appellant also cites trial
testimony that after the incident, he stated he was god and wanted the
-7-
J-S63022-18
victim’s powers, he did not demonstrate any feelings of guilt, but instead “he
acted as if he did not know that what he had done was wrong.” Id. at 17-22.
Appellant concludes the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a new trial.
We note our standard of review:
[T]he weight of the evidence is “exclusively for the finder of fact
who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to
determine the credibility of the witnesses.” An appellate court
“cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact . . .
thus, we may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so
contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.”
Moreover, “where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim
below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying
question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence . . . rather, appellate review is limited to whether the
trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight
claim.”
Commonwealth v. Kim, 888 A.2d 847, 851 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations
omitted). “Furthermore, when expert opinion evidence is admitted, the
factfinder is free to reject it, accept it, or give it some weight between the
two.” Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation omitted).
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 against the weight of the evidence. 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.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (citation
-8-
J-S63022-18
omitted).
Our Supreme Court has explained:
[A] verdict of guilty but mentally ill is authorized by Section 314
of the Crimes Code, as follows:
(a) General rule.—A person who timely offers a defense
of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal
Procedure may be found “guilty but mentally ill” at trial if
the trier of facts finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
person is guilty of an offense, was mentally ill at the time of
the commission of the offense and was not legally insane at
the time of the commission of the offense.
* * *
(c) Definitions.—For the purposes of this section . . . :
(1) “Mentally ill.” One who as a result of mental
disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity either to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform
his conduct to the requirements of the law.
(2) “Legal insanity.” At the time of the commission of
the act, the defendant was laboring under such a defect
of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the
nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did
know it, that he did not know he was doing what was
wrong.
18 Pa.C.S. § 314. [T]his Court determined that Section 314(a)
does not impose a burden of proof concerning a defendant’s
mental illness on either party, but rather, is implicated where an
insanity defense fails but evidence of the defendant’s mental
illness nevertheless “preponderates.” The insanity defense is
provided for in Section 315 of the Crimes Code, as follows:
(a) General Rule.—The mental soundness of an actor
engaged in conduct charged to constitute an offense shall only
be a defense to the charged offense when the actor proves by
a preponderance of the evidence that the actor was legally
insane at the time of the commission of the offense. . . .
-9-
J-S63022-18
18 Pa.C.S. § 315.
Commonwealth v. Rabold, 951 A.2d 329, 330-331 (Pa. 2008) (some
citations omitted).
Instantly, the trial court noted that at argument on Appellant’s post-trial
motion, he requested that the court “review specific testimony.” Trial Court
Opinion, 2/6/18, at 3. The court thus considered the testimony of prison
officials and Nurse Summers that “after the victim was discovered,” Appellant
“was gleeful, upbeat and pleasant,” and “told them he killed the victim to get
his power and now he was god.” Id. The court further acknowledged Dr.
Chaudhary’s expert testimony that Appellant “met the definition of legal
insanity at the time of the crime.” Id. However, the court also referenced
Dr. Chaudhary’s testimony that Appellant “indicated that he planned to kill the
victim”; “flushed the toilet to cover the noise when he began the assault”; and
covered the victim’s body “to conceal his actions.” Id. at 3-4. The court aptly
pointed out that “[t]he same evidence which is relevant to [Appellant’s]
proffered defense of insanity was relevant to the jury’s finding of mental
illness.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/18, at 4. The court also recognized that
the jury was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, and to determine
the witnesses’ credibility. See Stephens, 74 A.3d at 1041; Kim, 888 A.2d
at 851. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the jury’s verdicts were “in
no way . . . contrary to the evidence” and did not shock its sense of justice.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/18, at 4; Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/18, at 4.
- 10 -
J-S63022-18
Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Although Dr. Chaudhary offered his opinion that Appellant met the legal
definition of “insane” at the time of the killing, the jury was free to “reject it,
accept it, or give it some weight between the two,” and this Court may not
reweigh the trial evidence or credibility of the witnesses. See Stephens, 74
A.3d at 1041; Kim, 888 A.2d at 851. Where both the Commonwealth’s
witnesses and Dr. Chaudhary testified that some of Appellant’s actions
indicated that he planned the assault and knew he should “cover [it] up”, the
jury was free to reject Appellant’s insanity defense and find that “evidence of
[Appellant’s] mental illness nevertheless ‘preponderate[d].’” See Rabold,
951 A.2d at 331, citing 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 314(c)(1). It is well-settled law that
this Court may not reweigh evidence. See Widmer, 744 A.2d at 753; Kim,
888 A.2d at 851. Accordingly, we find no merit to Appellant’s weight claim.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/29/2018
- 11 -