Com. v. Croom, D.
506 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- In September 2014, 11-year-old D.D. fled his mother and Daniel C. Croom’s (Appellant) home and gave police a written statement describing repeated physical abuse (bruises, contusions, scars). Photographs and hospital records corroborated some injuries.
- Witnesses (a social worker and a family friend) testified D.D. reported multiple instances of beatings by Appellant and some joint abuse by Appellant and D.D.’s mother.
- A jury convicted Appellant of endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC), two counts of simple assault, and two counts of conspiracy.
- On February 23, 2016, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate 4 to 13 years’ imprisonment plus ten years’ probation and ordered only supervised contact with his other minor children.
- Appellant appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence for EWOC and conspiracy, (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and (3) that the sentence (including supervised visitation) was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Croom's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for EWOC and conspiracy | Evidence showed Appellant had duty as household disciplinarian, knew D.D. was at risk, and acted/failed to act so as to endanger the child; joint acts with mother supported conspiracy | Insufficient proof Appellant violated a duty of care or that bruises resulted from abuse by Appellant; no proof of awareness of psychological risk or of conspiracy | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, jury could find duty, awareness of risk, and actions/inactions amounting to EWOC; conspiracy supported by coordinated abuse testimony |
| Weight of the evidence | Victim’s testimony corroborated by medical records and third-party reports; jury reasonably resolved inconsistencies in favor of Commonwealth | D.D.’s testimony was inconsistent, incredible, and contradicted by others, so verdict should be set aside | Affirmed: trial court properly exercised discretion; credibility/resolution of inconsistencies were for the jury and trial judge to assess |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (length and supervised visitation) | Sentence was within guidelines; court considered PSI, testimony, allocution, defendant’s record, and rehabilitative needs; supervised visitation is reasonably related to rehabilitation | Sentence manifestly excessive; court failed to consider county jail alternative, remorse, employment, and no evidence other children were abused | Affirmed: sentencing court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion; supervised visitation condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2002) (elements of EWOC and definition of ‘endanger’)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (evidence need not preclude every possibility of innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims and trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sentencing is within trial court discretion; factors to be considered)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2015) (when a sentencing claim raises a substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (use of PSI and court’s awareness of defendant’s character)
- Commonwealth v. Dewey, 57 A.3d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2012) (supervised visitation as a probation condition can be reasonably related to rehabilitation)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (inconsistencies in testimony are for the factfinder to resolve)