Com. v. Murphy, S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S17002-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SANDRA L. MURPHY Appellant No. 1562 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 1, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0003099-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2014 imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of York County, after a jury convicted her of theft by unlawful taking,1 theft by deception,2 and forgery.3 evidence alleged to be an agreement between herself and the victim permitting Murphy to borrow the money at issue. Upon careful review, we affirm. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1). 3 18 Pa.C.S. § 1401(a)(1). J-S17002-14 Murphy and Genevieve M. Pradel center and became friends. In 2009, Pradel grew estranged from her daughters and sought to dismiss them as her agents under a power of attorney. Thereafter, Pradel contacted her attorney and instructed him to amend the document to appoint Murphy and her niece, Jane Biesiadecki, as agents. Shortly before her death, Pradel and her daughters reconciled, and she again amended the document through her attorney, reinstating the daughters as agents The Commonwealth alleges that after Murphy was removed as agent, Pradel had an agreement, memorialized in writing, permitting Murphy to borrow money in exchange for her services as agent. sought to introduce the written agreement into At trial, Murphy evidence. The Commonwealth objected, claiming the document was inauthentic, created by e agreement. argument on the authenticity issue from both parties. The trial court described its concerns regarding the document, which included that: it was e was at a 90-degree angle to the rest of the text; the document lacked a label or title; there were no signature blocks; and smiley faces were inexplicably included in the document. 5/13/14, at 11. N.T. Trial, The court also acknowledged Murphy and Prad -2- J-S17002-14 relationship and their levels of legal sophistication demonstrated by soliciting the services of an attorney to create past durable powers of attorney. Id. at 10the document was inconsistent with their legal knowledge. Id. Following a mid-day break, the court held a hearing on the authenticity issue. Murphy called Douglas Gent, Esquire, who served as s in heard additional argument from both parties. Upon completion of testimony and argument, the trial court ruled the document was not properly authenticated. Id. at 29. The case proceeded to trial and the jury convicted Murphy of all three charges. On count one, theft by unlawful taking, Murphy was sentenced to three to twenty-three court costs. On count two, theft by deception, she was sentenced to twelve restitution plus court costs. On count three, forgery, she was sentenced to in counts one, and two. Murphy was sentenced to pay all costs of prosecution and restitution and, after having paid those amounts, the probation ordered in counts two and three could be terminated. This timely appeal followed. Our standard of review is a vested in the sound discretion of the [trial] court and an appellate court may -3- J-S17002-14 Commonwealth v. Henry, 706 A.2d 313, 319 (Pa. 1997) (citation omitted). An abuse of overrides or misapplies the law, or exercises judgment which is manifestly Commonwealth v. Brown, 839 A.2d 433, 435 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Although the Commonwealth frames this appeal as a Best Evidence issue, the Rule is inapplicable in this scenario. Codified at Pa.R.E. 1002, the of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules, by other rules prescribed by the origina contents of the writing, recording or photograph to establish the elements of Commonwealth v. Fischer, 764 A.2d 82, 88 (Pa. Super. 2000). Here, the parties confirmed with the court there was no dispute as to the contents of the writing at trial. N.T. Trial, 5/13/13, at 10. Rather, the Commonwealth alleged Murphy created the document by photocopying together two separate documents. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 1003 governs the duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine -4- J-S17002-14 Pennsy authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to supporting a finding that the item is what the ). Rule 901 also includes examples of Id. Therefore, where a party seeks to admit Id. inding that Id. Here, the court resolved the issue of authenticity during a preliminary hearing, with the trial judge sitting as trier of fact. The court considered the handling legal matters, and determined the document was not properly authenticated. N.T. Trial, 5/13/14, at 29. In so holding, the trial court the victim had done handwritten documents in the past, but as the Commonwealth noted, even when they were handwritten, they were -5- J-S17002-14 Id. ent that would purport that the victim had demonstrated previously where she would consult with counsel Id. authentic. rney when amending her estate planning documents and that insufficient evidence existed to authenticate the document was within its purview. See Pa.R.E. 901. Finding ample support for its determination in the record, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Brown, supra lacks merit and we deny her relief. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/29/2014 -6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
