This post examines a recent decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, 159 A.3d 562 (2017). The court begins the opinion by
explaining that
[t]he Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
appeals from the order granting the post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal filed by Appellee, Joseph Bernard Fitzpatrick, III. In addition,
Appellee has filed a cross-appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse and
remand for reinstatement of the jury verdict and judgment of sentence, and we quash
Appellee's cross-appeal.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court’s opinion goes on to outline the “factual
and procedural history of this case”:
On June 6, 2012, emergency personnel
were dispatched to 2288 Old Forge Road in Chanceford Township, which is located
in York County, Pennsylvania. EMTs found [Appellee] and his wife, Annemarie
Fitzpatrick [`Victim’], down near the shore line of Muddy Creek. [Victim] was
unresponsive, but EMTs were eventually able to get a pulse and she was transported
to the hospital. A short time later, [Victim] was pronounced dead. Foul play
was not suspected and the family began making arrangements; [Victim's] body was
sent to the mortician for embalming.
Two days later, on June 8, 2012, the
Pennsylvania State Police received a call from Rebekah Berry, who was employed
by the same company as [Victim]. Employees at Collectibles Insurance had found
a note in [Victim's] day planner that they felt was `suspicious.’ The note
said, `If something happens to me—JOE.’ It was dated June 6, 2012, and signed
`A. Fitzpatrick.’ Upon request, Ms. Berry was given access to [Victim's] work
email where she found an email from
[Victim] to `feltonfitz@gmail.com,’ which was [Victim's] personal [email] account. The subject line of the email stated, `if something
happens to me,’ and the body of the email read ‘Joe and I are `having marital
problems. Last night we almost had an accident where a huge log fell on me. Joe
was on the pile with the log and had me untying a tarp directly below.’
This email was sent
June 6, 2012 at 10:30 A.M. Ms. Berry showed police the note and gave them
access to [Victim's] email account.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court goes on to explain that
[a]fter viewing the note and email, troopers contacted [Appellee]
and asked if he would be willing to come in for an interview; [Appellee]
agreed. [Appellee] was asked to again explain what occurred the night [Victim]
died; he was never asked about the note or email.
On June 9, 2012, approximately two days
after [Victim's] death and after the body had been embalmed, an autopsy was
conducted. Dr. Barbara Bollinger, the forensic pathologist, determined that the
cause of death was drowning. Although she was not asked to opine on the manner
of death, she did state that she thought the circumstances were `suspicious.’
From the point the handwritten note
and email were found,
the investigation turned from an accident investigation into a homicide
investigation with the prime suspect being [Appellee]. Eventually, troopers
discovered that [Appellee] was having a non-sexual affair with a woman named
Jessica Georg, and was thinking of leaving his wife for her. When confronted,
[Appellee] admitted to hiding [Victim's] phone from the police in an effort to
hide this affair. Troopers also discovered that [Appellee] would gain
approximately $1.7 million in life insurance if [Victim] were to die. After
searching [Appellee's] work computer,
troopers recovered two Google searches
from around the time of [Victim's] death. The first search, done on June 1,
2012, searched for `life insurance review during contestability period.’ The
second search, done on June 5, 2012, searched for `polygraph legal in which
states.’ This all led to [Appellee's] arrest on March 6, 2014—approximately a
year and a half after [Victim's] death.
[Appellee] was formally arraigned on
May 19, 2014, and Christopher A. Ferro, Esquire, entered his appearance on May
22, 2014. The case was assigned to the Honorable Gregory M. Snyder, who scheduled
a pre-trial conference for August 18, 2014. After two extensions, [Appellee]
filed an omnibus pre-trial motion on August 7, 2014. In that motion he
raised several issues, however, because he only raises the issue of the hearsay
note and email in his
post-sentence motion we will not discuss the other issues. Specifically,
[Appellee] argued that the handwritten note and email were inadmissible hearsay and the Commonwealth
should not be allowed to present either as evidence. The Commonwealth countered
that the note and email were
hearsay, but admissible under the state of mind exception. On October 20, 2014,
Judge Snyder denied [Appellee's] request, and permitted the Commonwealth to
present both the handwritten note and email.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The court goes on to explain that the case was
reassigned to the undersigned Judge due
to Judge Snyder's reassignment into the Family Division. We listed the
case for trial during the May term of trials.
[Appellee's] trial began on May 4,
2015. On May 13, 2015, [Appellee] was found guilty of First Degree Murder,
and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the same day. On May 22, 2015,`[Appellee]
filed a timely post-sentence motion. We directed each side to submit briefs in
support of their respective positions by the close of business July 1, 2015.
[Appellee] filed his brief on June 30, 2015, and the Commonwealth filed its
brief July 2, 2015.
After reviewing the briefs, we
scheduled oral argument on the sole issue of whether the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellee]
unlawfully killed his wife. That argument took place on August 6, 2015. We
reserved decision on all three issues.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
In a footnote, the Superior Court explains that the
three issues presented to the trial
court were as follows:
I. Was the jury's verdict of guilty against the weight of the evidence, which would entitle the Defendant to a new trial?
II. Did the Commonwealth present
sufficient evidence to prove each element of First Degree Murder beyond a
reasonable doubt?
III. Did the original trial judge
commit reversible error in permitting the Commonwealth to present a handwritten
note and email penned by the victim?
Trial Court Opinion, 9/1/15, at 4.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court goes on to explain that
[o]n September 1, 2015, the trial court
issued an order denying in part and granting in part Appellee's post-sentence motion. Specifically, the trial court denied Appellee's request for a new
trial, but granted Appellee's motion for judgment of acquittal based on the
Commonwealth's failure to present sufficient evidence to sustain a first-degree murder conviction. Order, 9/1/15, at 1.
Also on September 1, 2015, the
Commonwealth filed an appeal. On September 29, 2015, Appellee filed a
cross-appeal from the September 1, 2015 order. The Commonwealth, Appellee, and
the trial court have complied with [Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 1925. On October 19, 2015, this Court sua sponte consolidated
the appeals for disposition.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that the
Commonwealth presents the following
issue for our review:
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING
[APPELLEE'S] POST–SENTENCE MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AS THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION?
Commonwealth's Brief at 5.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that,
In addition, Appellee presents the
following issues in his cross-appeal:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER
DETERMINING THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE
EACH ELEMENT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, PROPERLY GRANTED
A JUDGEMENT [sic] OF ACQUITTAL?
II. WHETHER [APPELLEE] WAS DENIED
RIGHTS GRANTED TO HIM BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION WHEN INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, IN THE FORM OF A NOTE AND EMAIL FROM
[APPELLEE'S] DECEASED WIFE, WAS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AND USED BY THE COMMONWEALTH
TO SECURE A CONVICTION ON THE CHARGE OF MURDER?
Appellee/Cross–Appellant's Brief at 4.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court goes on to explain that in
its sole issue on appeal, the
Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in granting Appellee's
post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal. Commonwealth's Brief at 30–81.
In essence, the Commonwealth contends that it presented sufficient evidence at
Appellee's trial to establish the necessary elements of first-degree murder
beyond a reasonable doubt. We are constrained to agree.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The court went on to note that “[o]ur standard of review is
as follows:” Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick,
supra. It then explained that a motion for judgment of acquittal
`challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted only in
cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding that
charge.’
`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. Hutchinson,
947 A.2d 800, 805–806 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The court goes on to explain that
§ 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.
18 [Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes]
§ 2502(a). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has discussed the elements of
first-degree murder as follows:
To convict a defendant of first degree
murder, the Commonwealth must prove: [ (1) ] a human being was unlawfully
killed; [ (2) ] the defendant was responsible for the killing; and [ (3) ] the
defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.
Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 18 A.3d 1128, 1133 (2011) (internal
citations omitted.)
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court went on to explain that a
killing is intentional if it is done in
a `willful, deliberate and premeditated fashion.’ 18 [Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes] § 2502(d).The period of reflection needed to establish
deliberation and premeditation may be as brief as a fraction of a second. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa.
340, 983 A.2d 1211, 1220 (2009). Indeed, the deliberation and premeditation
needed to establish intent exist whenever the assailant possesses the conscious
purpose to bring about death. Id. The
Commonwealth may use circumstantial evidence to establish the elements of
first-degree murder, including the element of intent. Id.
Regarding the element of intent, our Supreme
Court has long explained that `murder may be committed without a motive, either
actual or apparent, but an
established motive may go to prove the related intent[,] just as an
absence of motive may be used to deny the existence of intent.’ Commonwealth v. Jones, 355 Pa.
522, 50 A.2d 317, 321 (1947) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In
addition, we observe the following:
`When there is no direct evidence of intent
to kill, the fact-finder may glean the necessary intent from the act itself and
from all surrounding circumstances. Specific intent to kill can be proven where the defendant knowingly
applies deadly force to the person of another. Death caused by
strangulation is sufficient to infer the specific intent required for a
conviction of first degree murder.
Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 549 Pa. 352, 701 A.2d 492, 500 (1997) (citations
omitted) (emphasis added). Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated that `[t]he
fabrication of false and contradictory accounts by an accused criminal, for the
sake of diverting inquiry or casting off suspicion, is a circumstance always
indicatory of guilt.’ Commonwealth
v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A.2d 743, 747 (1953) (quoting Commonwealth v. Spardute, 278 Pa.
37, 122 A. 161, 163 (1923)).
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court went on to explain that
[o]ur review of the record reflects
that each of the three elements of first-degree murder was proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of
forensic pathologist, Dr. Barbara K. Bollinger, who performed Victim's autopsy
three days after the murder. N.T., 5/6/15, at 494–568. Dr. Bollinger opined
that the manner of death was drowning. Id. at 497. Further, Dr. Bollinger testified to the
multiple injuries appearing on Victim's body, which totaled at least
twenty-five. Id. at
563. She stated that Victim had fourteen or more injuries about her torso,
eight injuries to her upper extremities, and at least twelve injuries
about her lower extremities. Id. at
562–563. Specifically, Dr. Bollinger documented the following injuries to
Victim: bruises over the upper and lower lip; bruises over the right temporal
region of the head and bruises to the upper right portion of the head;
hemorrhages about the back of the head and about the mid aspects of the head; head
hemorrhages on the right side of the neck within the muscles of the neck; three
bruises to the scapular regions; a patterned bruise on the infrascapular
region; several bruises to the right kidney region; abrasions on the left
buttock; a bruise on the right buttock; a bruise between the breasts; a small
bruise in the right lower abdominal quadrant; a bruise near the shoulder where
the Victim's left arm and shoulder meet; a bruise along the left side of the
torso that continued to the backside; bruises above the left hip area; a small
scratch of the skin in the groin region; bruises on the back of the left thigh;
a bruise on the outer aspect of the left foot; a bruise on the back of the
right leg; scattered abrasions on the right leg and a severe lasceration to the
great toe; abrasions and contusions to the upper and lower parts of both of the
arms; scratching and bruising about both of the elbows; scrapes
and contusions on the back of both hands. Id. at 505–513.
In addition, Dr. Bollinger opined that,
within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the various bruises and
injuries Victim suffered could have resulted from Victim being held under the
water in a creek by another person and drowning. N.T., 5/6/15, at 558–564. Furthermore,
repudiating Appellee's claim that Victim drowned in an ATV mishap involving
both Appellee and Victim, Dr. Bollinger opined that `the lack of injuries to
[Appellee] did not correspond with [Appellee's] rendition of the scene
circumstances [regarding] what occurred at the time of [Victim's] drowning.’ Id. at
528. Accordingly, this evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond
a reasonable doubt that Victim was unlawfully killed by being drowned in the
creek. Thus, we conclude that the Commonwealth established the first element of
the crime of first-degree murder.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that,
[w]ith regard to the second element of
first-degree murder, the evidence likewise established that the Commonwealth
proved that Appellee was responsible for killing Victim. Indeed, it is
undisputed that Appellee and Victim were alone on the property at the time that
Victim drowned in the creek. Trooper Grothey testified that during the initial
investigation, Appellee explained that he and Victim were celebrating their
thirteenth wedding anniversary at the time of the incident and that their two
children were staying with Appellee's parents. N.T., 5/5/15, at 225. Appellee
has not disputed this fact. Thus, Appellee was the only person who could have
held Victim underwater in the creek, thereby making him responsible for the
killing.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court then took up the issue of Fitzpatrick’s
specific intent, explaining that
[c]oncerning the issue of specific
intent possessed by Appellee, the Commonwealth presented ample evidence of the
couple's estranged relationship, including the fact that Appellee was in the
midst of an extramarital relationship with another woman, Jessica Georg. N.T.,
5/7/15–5/8/15, at 724–846. Appellee indicated to Ms. Georg that he was nervous
about losing his house and his children in a separation or divorce. N.T.,
5/8/15, at 772. In addition, Ms. Georg read into the record a Facebook post
authored by Appellee to Ms. Georg two weeks prior to the murder, which
provided, in relevant part, as follows:
`My children love their home and I
would not want to take that from them. I know you are [a] package deal and have
frankly thought about how I could change the girls['] rooms to accommodate your
girls. But they are the easy things to get past. The hardest will be my
separation.’
Id. at 783. Also, on June 1, 2012, Appellee sent
Ms. Georg an email which Ms. Georg described as follows, `[Appellee] wrote, I
love you, in all caps with more exclamation points tha[n] I can count.’ Id. at 793.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that
[o]n the evening of June 2, 2012,
Appellee sent the following Facebook message to Ms. Georg:
`Can't believe how I've fallen in love
with you in such a short period of time. It's crazy when you step back and
think about it. I feel like I'm in a jail cell. Wanting something I can't have.
So it hurts real bad. I believe you feel the same. I understand your position.
Single, want to be with someone, have a man pursuing you that you have been
intimate with, so you are torn and want satisfaction. Understanding this, I
tried to push the limits, take risks at getting caught prematurely to develop
what I truly believe will be something that few people on this earth get to
experience. My life is riddled with so many emotions, it's hard to comprehend.
I want to be yours. I want to help you pack, move, do whatever I can to help
you, but I can't. It feels like something is sticking in my chest with a knife.
I hate feeling this way. So tears are filling my eyes because I guess I have to
say good-bye [sic] until things are appropriate.’
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The court goes on to explain that
Ms. Georg also testified that on the
afternoon of the murder, Appellee sent Ms. Georg multiple text messages. N.T.,
5/8/15, at 802–805. One of the text messages from Appellee stated, `[R]eally
miss you.’ Id. at
803. The next text message from Appellee to Ms. Georg exclaimed, `And really
really really feel I was made for you.’ Id. Another text message from Appellee stated,
`Yes. But it is true I love you.’ Id.
In addition, on that same afternoon
Appellee sent Ms. Georg a text message with the lyrics of the song `You Are My
Sunshine,’ and the comment, `Well, maybe one day you won't need to buy another
property.’ N.T., 5/8/15, at 805. Appellee ended that particular text message
with the statement, `Love you. XOOOOO.’ Id.
The Commonwealth also presented stipulated
evidence of the existence of a total of $1,714,000 in life insurance policies
upon Victim, with Appellee being the designated beneficiary of those
policies. N.T., 5/11/15, at 920–921. In addition, it was stipulated that
on the morning of June 1, 2012, Appellee conducted a Google search on his work
computer using the words `life insurance review during contestability period.’ Id. at 918. This
cumulative evidence, although circumstantial, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, is sufficient to establish a motive for
Appellee's murder of Victim, thereby satisfying the necessary element of
intent.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
The Superior Court went on to explain that
[i]n conclusion, the record, viewed in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reflects that the Commonwealth
established Victim was unlawfully killed and that Appellee committed the murder
with the requisite motive and intent. Accordingly, we reverse the order
granting Appellee's motion for judgment of acquittal, and remand for
reinstatement of the jury verdict on the charge of first-degree murder and
judgment of sentence.
Commonwealth v.
Fitzpatrick, supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment