J-S04024-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DONALD KNIGHT
Appellant No. 2540 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 12, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011625-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 18, 2017
Donald Knight appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
August 12, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
following his conviction by the trial judge on the charges of attempted
burglary, attempted criminal trespass (breaking into a structure), possession
of an instrument of crime, and criminal mischief (tampering with property).1
Knight was sentenced to nine to twenty-three months’ incarceration,
followed by three years of reporting probation.2 In this timely appeal,
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3502(a)(4), 3503(a)(1)(ii), 907(a), and 3304(a)(2),
respectively.
2
The incarceration and probation was imposed on the attempted burglary
charge. Knight received no further punishment on the other charges.
J-S04024-17
Knight claims the trial court violated the corpus delicti rule by allowing the
introduction of Knight’s statement when no corpus of the crime had been
shown and then in considering that statement when the corpus had not been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After a thorough review of the certified
record, the submissions by the parties and relevant law, we affirm.
Initially,
Our standard of review for a challenge to the corpus delicti rule
is well-settled.
The corpus delicti rule is designed to guard against the
“hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to
confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a
conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” The
corpus delicti rule is a rule of evidence. Our standard of
review on appeals challenging an evidentiary ruling of the
trial court is limited to a determination of whether the trial
court abused its discretion. The corpus delicti rule places
the burden on the prosecution to establish that a crime has
actually occurred before a confession or admission of the
accused connecting him to the crime can be admitted. The
corpus delicti is literally the body of the crime; it consists of
proof that a loss or injury has occurred as a result of the
criminal conduct of someone. The criminal responsibility of
the accused for the loss or injury is not a component of the
rule. The historical purpose of the rule is to prevent a
conviction based solely upon a confession or admission,
where in fact no crime has been committed. The corpus
delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence.
Establishing the corpus delicti in Pennsylvania is a two-step
process. The first step concerns the trial judge's admission
of the accused's statements and the second step concerns
the fact finder's consideration of those statements. In
order for the statement to be admitted, the Commonwealth
must prove the corpus delicti by a preponderance of the
evidence. In order for the statement to be considered by
the fact finder, the Commonwealth must establish the
corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.
-2-
J-S04024-17
Commonwealth v. Young, 904 A.2d 947, 956 (Pa. Super.
2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 664, 916, A.2d 633 (2006)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Rivera, 828 A.2d 1094, 1103-04,
n. 10 (Pa. Super. 2004) appeal denied, 577 Pa. 672, 842 A.2d
406 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in
original).
Additionally,
The corpus delicti rule is an evidentiary one. On a challenge to a
trial court's evidentiary ruling, our standard of review is one of
deference.
The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion
of the trial court and will be reversed only if the trial court
has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not
merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding
or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment
that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias,
prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of
record.
Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356, 363 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 409, 410-11 (Pa. Super. 2012).
We recite the underlying facts of this matter as related by the trial court in
its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Philadelphia Police Officer William Benson testified that on July 9,
2014 at approximately 2:30 a.m. his tour of duty took him to
100 East Coulter Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (N.T.
5/22/15 p. 10). Officer Benson stated that there is a
convenience store at that location. Id. Officer Benson stated that
upon arrival with his partner, Officer Baldino, he observed that
the metal grated door at the rear of the convenience store was
pried away. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 10-11). Officer Benson testified
that his partner, Officer Baldino, then found a crowbar directly to
the left of the grated door on a ledge about five (5) or six (6)
feet tall. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 11 -12). Next, Officer Benson stated
that he surveyed the area for a suspect. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 14).
Officer Benson observed his supervisor arrive on the scene and
-3-
J-S04024-17
pull out her cell phone on location to call police radio. Id. Based
on the information that was communicated to him, Officer
Benson went to 107 East Coulter Street where he found [Knight]
on the porch in a black hoody, hidden, crouched behind a grill in
a fetal position. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 15-16).
Officer Benson placed [Knight] in custody and observed gloves in
[Knight’s] left pocket, a small flashlight in [Knight’s] right
pocket, and a second crowbar within arm's reach from [Knight]
on the patio. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 15-17).
Officer Benson identified Commonwealth Exhibit 2 (C-2), a
photograph of the convenience store, as what the convenience
store looked like on July 9, 2014. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 17-18).
Officer Benson then identified Commonwealth Exhibit 3 (C-3),
two photographs, as fair and accurate depictions of the property
at the time of the incident. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 18). He explained
that the top photograph pictured the side of the convenience
store and the bottom photograph displayed the door that was
pried open. Id. Officer Benson also identified Commonwealth
Exhibit 6 (C-6) as an accurate photograph of the damage done
to the convenience store door that was pried open. (N.T.
5/22/15 pp. 19-20).
Next, the Commonwealth questioned Officer Benson about
Commonwealth Exhibit 7 (C-7). (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 20). Officer
Benson described C-7 as a photograph taken directly left of the
grated door picturing a ledge where the first crowbar was
located. Id. Lastly, the Commonwealth showed Officer Benson
Commonwealth Exhibits 8 (C-8) and 9 (C-9). (N.T. 5/22/15 p.
20). Officer Benson stated that C-8 pictured the porch area and
was an accurate and fair depiction of the property he observed.
Id. He further stated that C-9 pictured the view from the porch
looking directly across the street through the grated door. (N.T.
5/22/15 pp. 21-22).
Officer Benson testified that the first crowbar was placed on
Property Receipt No. 3155296 and that the other recovered
items were placed on Property Receipt No. 3155297 marked as
Commonwealth Exhibit 1 (C-1). Id.
On cross-examination, Officer Benson testified that the property
receipt was created in his presence and that the first crowbar
was found on a ledge next to the door. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 16).
-4-
J-S04024-17
Defense counsel asked Officer Benson to re-examine C-1 as she
read from the document: "Police Officer Baldino located the
crowbar on the concrete ledge of the building surrounded by
grass and weeds." (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 26). Officer Benson affirmed
this statement. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 27). Defense counsel then
approached Officer Benson with C-8 and asked him to identify
where he found the second crowbar on the picture. Id. Officer
Benson stated that the second crowbar was within arm's reach
from [Knight] and indicated that location on the picture. Id.
Officer Benson testified that upon his arrival he noticed damage
to the property but did not know when the damage occurred. Id.
Officer Benson further stated that he did not know the age of the
property but stated that it was not new and affirmed that paint
was missing on some areas of the building (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 27-
28). Officer Benson could not recall if bricks were crumbling on
the building. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 28). Officer Benson stated that
when he first arrived on the scene, another officer stopped a
man in a white shirt near the convenience store at the front
entrance which is on the same sidewalk as the rear entrance of
the store. Id.
Detective John Schell testified that on July 9, 2015 at 3 p.m., he
was assigned to the Northwest Detectives and was on duty to
speak with [Knight]. (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 30). Detective Schell
stated that he read [Knight] his Miranda Rights and that
[Knight] wanted to make a statement. (N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 30-31).
[Knight’s] statement was marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 11
(C-11). (N.T. 5/22/15 p. 31). Detective Schell stated that the
document contained the Miranda Warnings that he conducted
and [Knight’s] signature at the bottom of the page. (N.T.
5/22/15 p. 32). Detective Schell then identified the Defendant's
signature on the second and third pages of the document. Id. He
stated that [Knight] provided the information on the top of the
page. Id. Detective Schell then read a portion of the document
for the court:
QUESTION: Did you try to break into 100 East Coulter?
ANSWER: No, I wasn’t trying to break in. I was just bored
and playing around at three in the morning.
QUESTION: Why would I hear you kept dropping the –
ANSWER: I did it.
QUESTION: Did you get in?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Did you take anything?
-5-
J-S04024-17
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Where did you try to access the building?
ANSWER: Rear door.
QUESTION: Would your DNA be on that crowbar?
ANSWER: Probably not.
QUESTION: Because you had gloves?
ANSWER: Something like that.
(N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 33-34). Detective Schell then read the last
question:
QUESTION: Would you read over this statement after I
print it out?
ANSWER: Yes.
(N.T. 5/22/15 pp. 34-35). Detective Schell stated that he
observed [Knight] read over the statement. (N.T. 5/22/15 p.
35). He stated that [Knight] had an opportunity to make
corrections at that time but did not. Id.
On cross-examination, Detective Schell stated he was not sure if
[Knight] stated that he needed to go and get his mother. Id.[3]
Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/2016, at 2-5.
Regarding the first stage of the corpus delicti analysis, the trial judge
determined that based on the evidence presented, the Commonwealth had
provided prima facie evidence of a crime having been committed, thereby
allowing Knight’s self-incriminating statement to be admitted into evidence.
The trial court found:
In the instant matter, Philadelphia Police Officer William Benson
testified credibly that on May 15, 2014, while on duty, he was
called to the location of a convenience store on 100 East Coulter
____________________________________________
3
Knight was also questioned about another attempted break-in in the
neighborhood earlier that night. Knight denied any involvement in that
incident and claimed his mother could provide an alibi for that crime.
-6-
J-S04024-17
Street. Officer Benson stated that upon arrival he observed that
the back door had been “pried away” and discovered a crowbar
next to the door on a ledge. Photographs were admitted into
evidence by the Commonwealth depicting the damage to the
back door of the convenience store. Officer Benson’s
observations of the damage to the door of the property, the
discovery of the crowbar found next to the door, and the
Commonwealth’s introduction of photographs displaying the
damage to the door are sufficient for this court to find by a
preponderance of the evidence that a crime occurred at 100 East
Coulter Street.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/17/2016, at 9.
It is important to describe the actual damage done to the property,
because the description “pried away” does not adequately convey the scene
as depicted in the photographs introduced as evidence at trial. See
Commonwealth Exhibits C-4 and 6. These photographs show a door made
of metal grating attached to the back wall of the convenience store. This
metal grate door prevented access to another, more traditionally appearing
door. The back wall is made of cinder block. A cinder block was partially
pried out of the wall at a place where the metal grate door apparently
latches closed. Accordingly, this depiction, coupled with a crowbar found
within feet of the damage, leads us to agree with the trial court that the
Commonwealth had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that an
-7-
J-S04024-17
attempted break-in had taken place. Accordingly, the trial court properly
allowed Knight’s self-incriminating statement to be admitted into evidence.4
The second aspect of Knight’s claim is that, having been admitted,
there was yet insufficient evidence to prove the corpus delicti beyond a
reasonable doubt, such that the incriminating statement could considered for
purposes of guilt determination. This argument similarly fails.
The trial judge noted additional facts that led him to find that corpus
delicti had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, Officer Benson testified that [Knight] was found
nearby the scene of the attempted burglary at 107 East Coulter
Street in a black hoody, crouched down behind a grill in a fetal
position with a crowbar within arm’s reach and gloves and
flashlight in his pocket. [Knight’s] (1) proximity to the scene of
the crime at 107 East Coulter Street; (2) body position by hiding
behind a grill; (3) manner of dress in a black hoody; (4)
possession of gloves in his back left hand pocket; (5) possession
of a small flashlight in his back right hand pocket; and (6)
proximity to a crowbar within arm’s reach, provide this court
with sufficient evidence to conclude that [Knight] was involved in
the criminal activity at 100 East Coulter Street based on the
totality of the circumstances.
Id. at 9-10.
____________________________________________
4
Although the trial court did not specifically rely on it, we are aware that the
property receipt for the crowbar found near the convenience store contains
the information that the police were called to the scene for a report of a
burglary in process. See Commonwealth Exhibit 1. The property receipt
was entered into evidence without limitation. N.T. Trial, 5/22/2015, at 38.
We also note that the police knew to look on the porch, behind the grill, at
107 East Coulter based upon information Officer Benson’s supervisor
received in a phone call to police radio (the dispatcher). Id., at 14-15.
-8-
J-S04024-17
Our independent review of the certified record leads us to conclude the
trial court committed no error in determining that an attempted burglary had
been committed at 100 East Coulter Street. Therefore, the trial court also
properly considered Knight’s statement as substantive evidence of his guilt.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/18/2017
-9-