J-S65030-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
RUDOLPH CHURCHILL :
:
Appellant : No. 2280 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007442-2014,
CP-51-CR-0007443-2014
BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JANUARY 30, 2018
Rudolph Churchill appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on
May 2, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On May
2, 2016, a jury found Churchill guilty of two counts of murder of the first
degree,1 and two counts of possession of an instrument of crime,2 in
connection with the March 1989, death of Ruby Ellis, and the April 1989, death
of Cheryl Hanible, and the trial court sentenced Churchill to two consecutive
life terms. In this appeal, Churchill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,
the weight of the evidence, and rulings of the trial court during the cross
examination of Detective Jeffrey Piree. We affirm, based upon the trial court’s
sound opinion.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a).
J-S65030-17
The trial court has extensively detailed the procedural history and facts
of this case, and further discussion is unwarranted. See Trial Court Opinion,
11/29/2016, at 1-21. Therefore, we proceed directly to the issues raised in
this appeal.3
Churchill presents three questions, as follows:
I. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain [Churchill’s]
convictions where no physical evidence conclusively
established that [he] was the perpetrator and where the
only evidence identifying him as the murderer – the
testimony of a jailhouse informant who suffered from visual
and auditory hallucinations – was so unreliable that it
rendered the verdicts insufficient as a matter of law?
II. Were the verdicts against the clear weight of the evidence
where: (1) the only testimony implicating [Churchill] in the
killings came from a jailhouse informant with numerous
convictions and a documented history of mental illness,
who reported that he was experiencing hallucinations and
delusions shortly before he implicated [Churchill] in the
crime; (2) the DNA evidence was too tenuous to implicate
[Churchill] in the killings of Ruby Ellis or Cheryl Hanible;
and (3) the Commonwealth lost and/or did not test other
evidence including but not limited to a ligature, both rape
kit slides and a cloth covering Ruby Ellis’ body?
III. Did the trial court err in prohibiting defense counsel from
cross-examining the only available detective from the
original investigation regarding the investigation into other
suspects and/or victims?
Churchill’s Brief at 4.
____________________________________________
3Churchill timely complied with the order of the trial court to file a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
-2-
J-S65030-17
The trial judge, the Honorable Rose Marie DeFino-Nastasi, has authored
a comprehensive opinion, disposing of all aspects of Churchill’s claims. See
Trial Court Opinion, 11/29/2016 (finding, inter alia: (I) Sufficiency of the
Evidence: (a) The veracity of the testimony of Richard Simmons, the jailhouse
informant, who was extensively cross examined regarding his prior convictions
and history of mental illness, was for the jury to decide; (b) DNA testing
conclusively established Churchill was the source of the DNA on the paper
towel with dark brown stain collected from the floor of the back seat of the
vehicle in which Ms. Ellis’ body was found; jury heard defense counsel’s
explanation that the abandoned vehicle was frequented by drug-users and
prostitutes, and was free to disbelieve the defense theory that Churchill’s DNA
was coincidentally at the crime scene; (c) DNA testing established Churchill
was the major contributor of the DNA collected from the heel of Ms. Hanible’s
left sneaker, which was missing the shoelace that was used to strangle her;
assuming the jury believed the Commonwealth’s expert, it was reasonable for
the jury to conclude that Churchill held Ms. Hanible’s sneaker by its heel,
removed the shoelace, and wrapped it around her neck; jury heard defense
counsel’s explanation that the abandoned, burned out bar where Ms. Hanible’s
body was found was frequented by drug-users and prostitutes, and was free
to disbelieve the defense theory that Churchill’s DNA was coincidentally at the
crime scene; (II) Weight of the evidence: The jury was free to credit the
testimony of the jailhouse informant and the evidence of Churchill’s DNA found
-3-
J-S65030-17
on the paper towel near Ms. Ellis’ and on Ms. Hanible’s left sneaker; court’s
sense of justice was not shocked by fact that there were other items of trash
in the vehicle where Ms. Ellis’ body was found, by fact that there was a mixture
of skin cells on the heel of Ms. Hanible’s left sneaker, and by fact
Commonwealth did lose and/or did not test other evidence the fact that the
Commonwealth did not test and/or lost certain items; and (III) Cross-
Examination of Detective Piree4: The court ruled that since this incident
occurred 27 years ago and many of those interviewed were not locatable, the
court would allow the defense some leeway to show there were other leads
investigated in the case and Churchill’s name was never mentioned in the
original interview; counsel took full advantage of the court’s ruling, elicited
hearsay responses before the jury, pursued an extended line of questioning
regarding persons of interest, and was not prohibited from cross-examining
regarding the existence and investigation into other suspects and/or victims.
____________________________________________
4 Churchill has waived his argument concerning questioning of Detective Piree
about James Johnson’s discovery of Ms. Ellis’ body by failing to include this
claim in his Rule 1925(b) concise statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)
(“Issues not included in the [Rule 1925(b)] Statement … are waived.”). In
any event, while the trial court sustained the Commonwealth’s objection to
the use of Mr. Johnson’s name, the trial court permitted cross examination
regarding whether Detective Piree had interviewed Mr. Johnson (who was not
referred to by name), whether any other police officer had questioned Mr.
Johnson after he provided a statement, and whether he should have been
questioned. See N.T., 4/26/2016, at 23-25.
-4-
J-S65030-17
Based on our review, we find the arguments of Churchill present no
basis upon which to disturb the judgment of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm,
based upon the trial court’s thorough, well-reasoned opinion of the Judge
DeFino-Nastasi.5
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/30/18
____________________________________________
5In the event of further proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a copy
of Judge DeFino-Nastasi’s November 29, 2016, opinion to this memorandum
-5-
0036_Opinion
Circulated 01/11/2018 04:24 PM