J-S36020-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MATTHEW JAMES RAMSAY :
:
Appellant : No. 1857 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 19, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001302-2017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
Appellant, Matthew James Ramsay, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas,
following his jury trial convictions for third-degree murder, driving under the
influence of a controlled substance (“DUI”), homicide by vehicle, and accidents
involving death or personal injury, and his bench trial conviction for careless
driving.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows:
The instant case arises out of a fatal hit and run crash on
December 24, 2016, on Ruffsdale Alverton Road in East
Huntingdon Township, Westmoreland County. [Victim] died
as a result of the injuries he sustained from the vehicle
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
118 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c), 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(1)(i), 3732(a), 3742(a),
and 3714(a), respectively.
J-S36020-20
crash. The evidence presented at trial established that on
the date of the incident, [Appellant] was driving his vehicle
in the southbound lane of Ruffsdale Alverton Road. At this
time, [Victim] was jogging on the berm of the northbound
lane of Ruffsdale Alverton Road facing oncoming traffic.
While driving in the southbound lane, [Appellant]’s vehicle
crossed over the roadway striking and killing [Victim] from
behind. [Appellant] left prior to anyone arriving on scene.
The Commonwealth presented the testimony of multiple
witnesses at trial. [Victim’s wife] testified that on the date
of the incident, [Victim] decided to go for a walk and headed
in the direction of Ruffsdale Alverton Road. [Victim] was
accompanied by one of his dogs at that time. [Victim’s wife]
testified that her husband had a habit of being extra
cautious, and he always walked against traffic. Justin Alan
Kuhn, who resided at 816 Ruffsdale Alverton Road, testified
that on the date of the incident, he observed a familiar man
jogging with his dog during the afternoon hours. Mr. Kuhn
testified that he observed the man cross over to the
opposite side of the road facing traffic; and approximately
five minutes later, he observed the same dog circling up the
road and saw what appeared to be the gentleman lying on
the ground.
Michael Bisher testified that on the afternoon of Christmas
Eve in 2016, he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by
Stephen Babick. Mr. Bisher stated that while driving
southbound down Ruffsdale Alverton Road, he observed a
dog running loose and then observed a person lying on the
ground. Mr. Bisher indicated that when he and Mr. Babick
first arrived, no one else was present at the scene until the
paramedic arrived. David Lovis, who is employed as a
paramedic supervisor with Mutual Aid Ambulance Service,
testified that on the afternoon of December 24, 2016, he
responded to the vehicle pedestrian accident and observed
an unresponsive victim laying up in the weeds, and a dog
running around.
Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Kevin Wheelden was the
lead investigator on this case. He testified that on
December 24, 2016, he was dispatched to the scene of the
crash on Ruffsdale Alverton Road. Trooper Wheelden
indicated that there were no adverse weather conditions,
-2-
J-S36020-20
and the roadway was clear at that time. During trial,
Corporal Bradley Poole, who is employed as a Patrol
Supervisor with the Pennsylvania State Police, testified as
an expert witness in the area of accident reconstruction.
Corporal Poole testified that he arrived on scene at 3:48
p.m. on December 24, 2016. Corporal Poole stated that
there were no observed defects on the roadway that would
have caused the collision at that time, and there were no
environmental conditions with [Appellant]’s 1995 Saturn SC
vehicle or the roadway that would account for [Appellant]’s
vehicle being driven outside of its southbound lane into the
northbound lane. Additionally, Corporal Poole testified that
there were no brake marks, skid marks, or yaw marks on
the roadway caused by [Appellant]’s vehicle.
Christopher Lee Johnson testified that in December of 2016,
he resided in the New Stanton Manor Apartments. Mr.
Johnson stated that [Appellant] also lived in the same
building, and [Appellant]’s apartment was located two floors
below his. Mr. Johnson testified that he saw [Appellant] on
a regular basis, and he knew [Appellant]’s car to be a red
Saturn. On December 24, 2016, Mr. Johnson stated he
received a text message from [Appellant] asking him for a
ride. Mr. Johnson indicated that [Appellant] also sent him
two pictures of his vehicle with the text, “Sum 1 walked out
in front of me.” Anthony Williams also had occasion to stay
at the New Stanton Manor Apartments. Mr. Williams
testified that he had previously dated [Appellant]’s current
girlfriend, Lindsay Myers, and he sometimes stayed with
them at their apartment in New Stanton. Mr. Williams
stated that on the afternoon of December 24, 2016, he and
[Appellant] planned to go to Walmart in Mount Pleasant. Mr.
Williams testified that he was a passenger in [Appellant]’s
vehicle. During the trip, Mr. Williams stated that he was
emptying out the contents of his pockets on the dashboard
and looking down at his phone when he heard a loud thump
and observed the windshield cracked on the driver’s side.
Mr. Williams testified that he believed [Appellant] swerved
left to right to avoid hitting potholes; however, he did not
witness the crash. Mr. Williams stated that [Appellant] then
proceeded to his dad’s house, and then the three of them
went to Walmart in [Appellant]’s father’s vehicle. Mr.
Williams described [Appellant] as appearing “tired” and
“stressed out” on this day.
-3-
J-S36020-20
Retired Trooper Richard Stepinsky, Jr. testified that
following the crash, he was dispatched to the site to
photograph the crime scene and collect evidence. Mr.
Stepinsky testified that he and Corporal Isoldi also
responded down the road to a trailer park at which time they
found a vehicle parked alongside the trailer. The vehicle
was described as partially covered with a tarp, and there
was blood on the vehicle. Trooper Wheelden testified that
[Appellant] was identified as the driver of the vehicle. As a
result of the investigation, [Appellant] was subsequently
interviewed by Troopers Wheelden, Zalich, and Adams at
the State Police Barracks in Greensburg. The interview
began at 11:00 p.m. on December 24, 2016. During the
interview, Trooper Wheelden stated that [Appellant]
appeared “very unkempt,” and he “seemed to be slow and
sluggish.” Additionally, Trooper Wheelden described
[Appellant]’s hair as being “long” and “greasy,” and he
described his clothing as being “dirty.” After being
appraised of his Miranda rights, [Appellant] consented to
[2]
give a recorded statement to the troopers. Said statement
was introduced at trial as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 25, and
a transcript of the audio was introduced as Commonwealth’s
Exhibit 24.
According to the transcript from the police interview,
[Appellant] indicated that he was driving his vehicle on
Ruffsdale Alverton Road on that day, and at approximately
2:30, he hit something which caused his windshield to crack.
After looking around and not seeing anything, [Appellant]
indicated he left the scene and shortly returned; however,
he was unable to find anything or anyone.
During the police interview, the following dialogue occurred
between Trooper Zalich and [Appellant]:
Trooper Zalich: [Appellant] I think you saw what you
hit.
[Appellant]: No, honestly I didn’t. I really didn’t see.
____________________________________________
2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
-4-
J-S36020-20
Trooper Zalich: In broad day light you didn’t see what
you hit?
[Appellant]: No, I really didn’t see if, what I hit.
Trooper Zalich: Do you realize you were driving all
over the road too?
[Appellant]: I kinda…
Trooper Zalich: Swerving
[Appellant]: …just do this sometimes (unintelligible)
Trooper Zalich: Okay, lanes are made for a reason
[Appellant]: I know
Trooper Zalich: [Whether] it’s a lined road or it’s an
unlined road
[Appellant]: I know
Trooper Zalich: [Whether] there is traffic or no traffic
[Appellant]: I know, I’m sorry, I just, sometimes
Trooper Zalich: So you’re saying yesterday you
consumed your Methadone in the morning at roughly
9 am
[Appellant]: Yes
When asked what [Appellant] was doing when he responded
to those questions concerning the nature of his driving,
Trooper Wheelden testified that [Appellant] acted as if he
was grabbing ahold of the steering wheel, and he was
making a motion when he was describing how he sometimes
just swerves all over the roadway.
Trooper Wheelden stated that [Appellant]’s blood was
collected on December 25, 2016 at 5:06 a.m., and the
samples were sent to NMS Laboratories for analysis. The
results of the analysis indicated the presence of 87
-5-
J-S36020-20
nanograms per milliliter of Alprazolam (Xanax), 170
nanograms per milliliter of Delta-9 Carboxy THC and Delta-
9 THC (marijuana), and 280 nanograms per milliliter of
methadone in [Appellant]’s blood. As [Appellant] did not
acknowledge in the interview to taking any illicit substances,
other than marijuana after the crash and methadone before
the crash, and because of the fifteen hour delay in testing
[Appellant]’s blood, the Commonwealth acknowledged that
the extrapolation back to [Appellant]’s actual time of
operation could not be done. Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Cyril
H. Wecht testified that an autopsy of [Victim] was
performed, and it was determined that [Victim] died due to
blunt force trauma to his head and trunk. Dr. Wecht stated
that a toxicology test was also performed on [Victim], and
the results were negative. Additionally, Dr. Wecht testified
to the impact that benzodiazepines, marijuana, and
methadone can individually and in combination have on the
mental and physical faculties of a body.
Lastly, Mary Beth Grundler, who is employed as a facility
director at the methadone facility, RHJ Medical Center
testified that [Appellant] was a client at the methadone
facility starting in January of 2014. As part of [Appellant]’s
admission to the facility, Ms. Grundler testified that
[Appellant] reviewed and signed numerous forms.
Specifically, Ms. Grundler testified that upon entry at the
facility, [Appellant] signed a “Consent to Treatment” form,
a “Medication Driving Agreement” form, in which [Appellant]
denied taking any prescription and/or non-prescribed drugs,
alcohol, or marijuana; a “Policy and Procedures Statement”
form, in which patients are directed to cease using illicit
drugs while using methadone; an “Information Disclosure”
form; an “Additional Policies and Procedures for Clients with
Benzodiazepines Prescriptions”; and a “Client Handbook.”
Ms. Grundler indicated that all clients are informed that if
they use a benzodiazepine in conjunction with methadone,
it can make them more lethargic and create more intensity
of either drug. Ms. Grundler testified that when [Appellant]
first was admitted to the methadone clinic, his urine tested
positive for benzodiazepine, THC, and methadone. Despite
any knowledge that [Appellant] had ever been prescribed a
benzodiazepine, Ms. Grundler confirmed that [Appellant]
continued to test positive for benzodiazepines in addition to
his methadone through May of 2016. As a result of the
-6-
J-S36020-20
positive tests, Ms. Grundler testified that [Appellant] was
counseled and directed to abstain from abusing
benzodiazepines. Ms. Grundler stated that on December 22,
2016, [Appellant] provided a urine sample in which no
benzodiazepines were detected.
The Defense presented one witness at trial. Lindsay Jean
Ramsay, who is [Appellant]’s wife, testified that on the
morning of December 24, 2016, she and [Appellant] woke
up and went to the methadone clinic together. Mrs. Ramsay
testified that she observed [Appellant] take his 55 milligram
dosage of methadone around 9:00 a.m. Mrs. Ramsay
stated that prior to going to the methadone clinic, she did
not see [Appellant] smoke any marijuana or take any other
pills or illicit drugs. Mrs. Ramsay testified that [Appellant]
remained at the apartment with her until approximately
1:30 p.m. [Appellant] elected not to testify at trial.
(Trial Court Opinion, dated November 15, 2019, at 1-8) (internal citations
omitted).
At the conclusion of trial on March 15, 2019, the jury convicted Appellant
of third-degree murder, DUI, homicide by vehicle, and accidents involving
death or personal injury. The court also found Appellant guilty of the summary
offense of careless driving. On June 10, 2019, the court sentenced Appellant
to an aggregate term of 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment.3 Appellant timely filed
post-sentence motions on June 20, 2019. Following a hearing on August 13,
2019, the court entered an opinion and order on November 15, 2019, denying
Appellant’s motion. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on Monday,
December 16, 2019. On December 31, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to
____________________________________________
3 The court entered an amended sentencing order on June 19, 2019,
confirming that Appellant had been found guilty of careless driving.
-7-
J-S36020-20
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant complied on January 21, 2020.
On appeal, Appellant raises two issues:
Whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s post-
sentence motion for a judgment of acquittal for the reason
that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury
verdict of guilty for the charge of murder of the third degree
at count 1 of the information?
Whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s post-
sentence motion for a new trial for the reason that the jury
verdict of guilty for the charge of murder of the third degree
at count 1 of the information was against the weight of the
evidence?
(Appellant’s Brief at 6).
In his issues combined, Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to
present sufficient evidence at trial to prove Appellant committed third-degree
murder. Specifically, Appellant alleges the Commonwealth failed to establish
that Appellant acted with malice. Appellant concedes the evidence the
Commonwealth presented may have been sufficient to establish that he acted
negligently. For similar reasons, Appellant asserts the jury’s verdict for third-
degree murder was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant concludes
he is entitled to relief on his challenges to the sufficiency and/or weight of the
evidence, and that he is entitled to judgment of acquittal or a new trial. We
disagree.
When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our standard
of review is as follows:
-8-
J-S36020-20
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at
trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there
is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In
applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition,
we note that the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may
be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of
fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means
of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the
above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all
evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the
[trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe
all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal
denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Additionally:
The 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…verdict if it is so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.
Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, [435,] 741 A.2d
666, 672-73 (1999). 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.
-9-
J-S36020-20
Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408
(2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004)
(most internal citations omitted).
The Crimes Code defines murder as follows:
§ 2502. Murder
(a) Murder of the first degree.—A criminal homicide
constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed
by an intentional killing.
(b) Murder of the second degree.—A criminal homicide
constitutes murder of the second degree when it is
committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or
an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
(c) Murder of the third degree.—All other kinds of
murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the
third degree is a felony of the first degree.
* * *
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a)-(c). “Murder in the third degree is an unlawful killing
with malice but without the specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v.
Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2011). Malice is defined as:
[A] wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty,
recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of
social duty, although a particular person may not be
intended to be injured…. [M]alice may be found where the
defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and
extremely high risk that his actions might cause serious
bodily injury.
Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574, 582 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal
denied, 569 Pa. 716, 806 A.2d 858 (2002). “Malice may be inferred by
considering the totality of the circumstances.” Dunphy, supra.
- 10 -
J-S36020-20
Instantly, the Commonwealth presented at trial, inter alia: (1)
testimony from Trooper Wheelden and Corporal Poole that there were no
defects in the roadway or any environmental conditions that would explain
Appellant’s failure to maintain his lane of travel; (2) testimony from Mr.
Johnson that Appellant texted him a picture of Appellant’s damaged vehicle
with the message, “Sum 1 walked out in front of me;” (3) testimony from Mr.
Williams that Appellant appeared “tired” and “stressed out” on the date of the
incident, and that Appellant left the scene after the crash and proceeded with
his plan to visit Walmart; (4) Mr. Stepinsky’s testimony that Appellant’s
vehicle was found with a cracked windshield covered by a tarp and with blood
on the driver’s side of the car; (5) Appellant’s police interview recording, in
which Appellant admitted that he sometimes swerves all over the roadway
while driving; (6) testimony from Trooper Wheelden that Appellant appeared
“slow and sluggish” on the date of the incident; (7) testimony that fifteen
hours after the crash, Appellant’s blood was taken and Appellant tested
positive for Xanax, marijuana, and methadone; (8) testimony from Dr. Wecht
regarding the effects that Xanax, marijuana, and methadone can have, both
individually and in combination with each other; and (9) testimony from Ms.
Grundler that Appellant had been instructed not to take any other drugs while
in recovery, but Appellant continued to take the drugs despite repeated
warnings about the side effects (lethargy, etc.) of mixing drugs with
methadone.
- 11 -
J-S36020-20
In its opinion denying Appellant’s post-sentence motions, the trial court
concluded that the evidence presented supported a finding of malice, stating:
Based upon [Appellant]’s disregard for the repeated
warnings of the dangerous effects of mixing Xanax with
methadone, the presence of Xanax, marijuana, and
methadone in his blood following the accident, his admission
regarding his reckless manner of driving, the absence of any
testimony that there were any environmental or climatic
conditions that would explain [Appellant]’s failure to
maintain his lane of travel, [Appellant]’s flight after hitting
[Victim], and [Appellant]’s conduct following the crash
demonstrate that [Appellant] completely disregarded an
unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions would
cause death or serious bodily injury to support a conviction
of third degree murder.
(Trial Court Opinion at 12). Viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict-winner, we agree with the court’s analysis that the
evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of third-degree murder. See 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(c); Hansley, supra. For similar reasons, we will also not
disturb the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s weight of the evidence challenge.
See Champney, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2020
- 12 -
J-S36020-20
- 13 -