J-S86032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
TRAVIS JOHN HALLAM
Appellant No. 701 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 5, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000057-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 23, 2016
Appellant, Travis John Hallam, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial
convictions for aggravated assault and simple assault, and his bench trial
conviction for summary harassment.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts of
this case as follows:
On February 11, 2015, at around 10:00 p.m., [Victim]
received a Facebook message from Waylon Muniz, a
recently reconnected childhood friend, asking for a ride
from Bentleyville to Centerville. When [Victim] arrived in
Bentleyville, [Mr.] Muniz was waiting with Appellant….
[Mr.] Muniz sat in [Victim’s] passenger seat and Appellant
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(4); 2701(a)(1); 2709(a)(1), respectively.
_____________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S86032-16
entered the backseat when [Mr.] Muniz changed the
destination from Centerville to Brownsville. [Victim] took
the men to two locations in Brownsville. At the second
location, [Mr.] Muniz and Appellant exited the vehicle and
met people parked in another car nearby. [Mr.] Muniz and
Appellant returned to [Victim’s] vehicle, entering the same
seats, and asked to be returned to the first location.
[Victim] became frustrated driving the men around and
said he would never do anything like this for them again.
At that point, [Victim] felt an object hit the back of his
head and Appellant said[,] “don’t fuckin’ move.”
According to [Victim], his “natural instinct” was to fight
back by knocking whatever Appellant had in his hand down
and then fighting to contain Appellant. [Mr.] Muniz pulled
the keys from the ignition, locked the door, and then
began to choke [Victim]. [Victim] attempted to exit, but
the door was locked and he began to be struck in the head
a few times. [Victim] identified Commonwealth Exhibit 1—
namely, a .22 Ruger revolver, as being the item he was
struck in the head with by Appellant. [Victim] sustained
two lacerations to the back of his head, felt a headache for
five days, and described the pain as a nine out of ten.
All of the men exited the vehicle and [Victim] was going
towards [Mr.] Muniz when [Mr.] Muniz asked Appellant for
“the piece.” Appellant threw a punch at [Victim] and
missed when [Victim] pulled a pocketknife from his pocket
and struck Appellant. [Victim] screamed for a bystander
about one hundred yards away to call the police which
caused Appellant and [Mr.] Muniz to run away. [Victim]
screamed at [Mr.] Muniz for his keys, [Mr.] Muniz
responded they were on the floor, and [Victim] was able to
leave the scene. When questioned by Pennsylvania State
Police Officer Joseph Timms, [Victim] directed the police to
the wooded area where [Mr.] Muniz and Appellant ran and
the police recovered the gun in that area.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed June 13, 2016, at 2-3) (internal citations omitted).
Procedurally, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with aggravated
assault, simple assault, three counts of robbery, theft, and summary
-2-
J-S86032-16
harassment. Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on April 4, 2016. On April
5, 2016, the jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault and simple
assault; the court convicted Appellant of summary harassment. The jury
found Appellant not guilty on the remaining charges. The court sentenced
Appellant on May 5, 2016, to an aggregate term of twenty-four (24) to
forty-eight (48) months’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed post-sentence
motions challenging the weight of the evidence on May 6, 2016, which the
court denied on May 9, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on
May 12, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the court ordered Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on June 2, 2016.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WHEN THE VERDICT WAS
AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO STRIKE THE
UNSOLICITED COMMENT MADE BY THE ALLEGED
VICTIM…DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HE WAS
TOLD NOT TO CALL 911?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
When examining a challenge to the weight of the evidence, our
standard of review is as follows:
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
-3-
J-S86032-16
may only reverse the…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. 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)
(internal citations omitted). A “trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial
based on a weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.”
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 363, 983 A.2d 1211, 1225
(2009), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 909, 130 S.Ct. 3282, 176 L.Ed.2d 1191
(2010).
Additionally, the standard of review of a trial court’s admission or
exclusion of evidence is well established and very narrow:
Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie
within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a
reviewing court will not reverse the court’s decision on
such a question absent a clear abuse of 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. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1185-86 (Pa.Super. 2005),
appeal denied, 586 Pa. 723, 890 A.2d 1057 (2005) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]o constitute reversible error, an
-4-
J-S86032-16
evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial
to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200,
1209 (Pa.Super. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Nancy D.
Vernon, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 3-6) (finding: (1) jury’s verdict is
consistent with evidence presented at trial; jury credited Victim’s testimony;
as verdict was not contrary to evidence it does not shock one’s sense of
justice; verdict was not against weight of evidence, so court properly denied
Appellant’s motion for new trial; (2) during cross-examination of Victim,
defense counsel elicited testimony from Victim that he did not call 911
when he got home on evening in question because “[he] was told not to”;
Appellant fails to explain how he was prejudiced by Victim’s response;
defense counsel elicited response, and Victim did not attribute statement as
coming from any identifiable source; Appellant cannot show abuse of
discretion or prejudice). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial
court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-5-
J-S86032-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/23/2016
-6-
Circulated 11/10/2016 03:06 PM
Com. v. Hallam, T.
Combined Opinion