J-S24013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL JOHN NEWFIELD :
:
Appellant : No. 3353 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-64-CR-0000138-2018
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2019
Michael John Newfield appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, after he was convicted,
following a non-jury trial, of strangulation (F-2)1 and simple assault.2 After
careful review, we affirm.
Newfield was charged with simple assault, harassment, and
strangulation in connection with an April 2018 physical altercation involving
his live-in girlfriend (victim), who is also the mother of two of his minor
children. Newfield and the victim were drinking on the evening of the incident,
when the victim got upset with Newfield for his behavior the prior evening.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718.
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S24013-19
The victim flicked her cigarette at the back of Newfield’s head and threw a
glass of wine in his face.3 In response, Newfield grabbed the victim with both
of his hands by her neck and pushed her up against a counter. Although the
victim was able to extricate herself momentarily, Newfield grabbed the victim
again, got on top of her as he pushed her to the floor, and put his hands
around her neck again choking her. Newfield told the victim that he knew
pressure points that could kill somebody. Although the parties’ 10-year-old
son tried to intervene in the melee, Newfield continued to choke the victim.
The victim ultimately escaped and called the police to report that Newfield had
choked and attacked her. Trooper Christopher Shelling of the Pennsylvania
State Police, who responded to the victim’s emergency call, testified that the
victim had markings on the left side of her neck consistent with being choked
and also testified that Newfield admitted he had “brought [the victim] to the
ground [sic] and put her in a choke hold to restrain her.” N.T. Non-Jury Trial,
8/20/18, at 39.
Newfield was arrested, charged, and waived his right to a jury trial. On
August 20, 2018, following a non-jury trial before the Honorable President
Judge Janine Edwards, Newfield was found guilty of strangulation and simple
assault. On October 18, 2018, the court sentenced Newfield to 24 months to
60 months, less one day, of imprisonment. Newfield filed a timely notice of
appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors
____________________________________________
3 The victim was also charged with harassment.
-2-
J-S24013-19
complained of on appeal. He presents the following issue for our
consideration: Whether the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction
of strangulation. Appellant’s Brief, at 5.
The standard of review in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is to
determine if the Commonwealth established beyond a reasonable doubt each
of the elements of the offense, considering all the evidence admitted at trial,
and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the
Commonwealth as the verdict-winner. Commonwealth v Pruitt, 951 A.2d
307 (Pa. 2008).
Newfield argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he
impeded the victim’s breathing during the parties’ altercation where “neither
party testified to events sufficient to sustain a conviction of strangulation.”
Appellant’s Brief, at 7. Specifically, Newfield contends that where he never
attempted to impede the victim’s breathing and where the victim “was always
able to breathe and never passed out,” the Commonwealth did not sustain its
burden of proving the crime of strangulation. We disagree.
A person commits the offense of strangulation if “the person knowingly
or intentionally impedes the breathing or circulation of the blood of
another person by: (1) applying pressure to the throat or neck; or (2)
blocking the nose and mouth of the person.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2718(a) (emphasis
added). Here, the victim testified that Newfield placed both of his hands
around her neck and told her that he knew how to kill her as he choked her.
N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 8/20/18, at 11, 26, 29. As Newfield choked the victim for
-3-
J-S24013-19
the second time, while she lay on the kitchen floor with him on top of her, the
victim testified that she could not breathe freely and that she “felt like [she]
couldn’t breathe when he had [her] on the floor in the kitchen.” Id. at 12,
37. Although the victim never passed out during the episode and admitted
she was able to communicate with Newfield during the incident, section 2718
only requires that a victim’s breathing be knowingly impeded. 18 Pa.C.S. §
2718(a).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, we conclude that the trial
judge could have found that the Commonwealth proved, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Newfield knowingly or intentionally impeded the victim’s breathing
during their altercation. Pruitt, supra. Thus, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/19
-4-