Com. v. Lagreca, J., Com. v. Lagreca, J. No. 3164 EDA 2014

On April 19, 2014, Jerome LaGreca called HCR ManorCare where his elderly parents resided and spoke with nurse’s aide Jenayra Quinones; during a 30–45 minute call he used expletives and threatened physical harm, saying he would “physically push” staff and referenced “shooting up” the facility.
Quinones reported the call to her supervisor and police; she gave a written statement and later testified at trial. The prosecutor used her police statement to refresh her recollection on the stand.
LaGreca was charged with harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1)) and disorderly conduct; after a bench trial he was convicted of harassment and acquitted of disorderly conduct and fined $100 plus costs.
No post-trial motions were filed; counsel filed a timely appeal and later sought to withdraw when representation was no longer provided for summary-only offenses. The court denied appointment of new counsel and LaGreca proceeded pro se on appeal.
On appeal LaGreca challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) weight of the evidence, and (3) the trial court’s allowance of Quinones to refresh her memory via her written police statement.
The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the evidence supported the harassment conviction, the weight claim was waived, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing memory-refreshing under the three-part test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for harassment	Commonwealth: threats to physically push staff and statements about "shooting up" the facility satisfied intent-to-harass and threat elements	LaGreca: did not threaten Quinones, conversation was shorter and he only spoke to his mother; Quinones' account is unreliable	Affirmed — evidence, viewed in favor of Commonwealth, was sufficient and trial court credibility findings stand
Weight of the evidence	Commonwealth: verdict supported by credible testimony; no miscarriage of justice	LaGreca: verdict against weight because Quinones' testimony was untruthful	Waived for failure to raise motion for new trial before sentencing; alternatively meritless
Use of written police statement to refresh witness memory	Commonwealth: Quinones’ present memory was inadequate, the statement could and did refresh her memory under the three-part test	LaGreca: trial court erred by allowing prosecutorial use of the written statement to refresh recollection	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting refreshment under Rule 612 and controlling precedent
Right to appointed counsel on appeal after counsel withdrew	LaGreca: requested remand for appointed counsel	Commonwealth/Trial court: for summary offenses without imposed or likely imprisonment, no right to appointed counsel	Trial court correctly applied Blackham/Smith and denied appointment; LaGreca proceeded pro se on appeal

Commonwealth v. Chambers, 157 A.3d 508 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review; fact-finder credibility deference)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence claim must be preserved by timely post-trial motion)
Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (no appointment of counsel for summary offense when imprisonment unlikely)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 868 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in summary cases where imprisonment not possible)
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Genteel, 499 A.2d 637 (Pa. Super. 1985) (three-part test for refreshing a witness’s memory)
Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court discretion governs evidentiary admissibility issues)
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)