Com. v. Vause, T.

J-S33041-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TIMOTHY JESSYE VAUSE : : Appellant : No. 1764 EDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001824-2023 BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and BECK, J. MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2026 Timothy Jessye Vause (“Vause”) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered by the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following his bench trial convictions of strangulation, unlawful restraint, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (“REAP”), and disorderly conduct. 1 Vause challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his strangulation conviction. He also claims the trial court, sitting as factfinder, erred by considering evidence the parties agreed was inadmissible as to his strangulation charge to convict him of strangulation. Finding no merit to either contention, we affirm. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2718(a)(1), 2902(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), 2705, 5503(a)(4). J-S33041-26 The record reflects that in the early morning hours of January 14, 2023, Vause attacked his former intimate partner, Stephanie Sangiorgio, over a prolonged period. The assault began as she drove him in her vehicle and continued after they arrived at the parking lot of an extended stay hotel where Vause was living. The trial court summarized the facts of the case established at trial: Vause and Ms. Sangiorgio were friends for about eight years before the two started dating in 2020. Vause and Ms. Sangiorgio were in an intimate relationship from 2020 until 2022. In January 2023, their relationship was complicated. They were not together, but they often discussed trying to make the relationship work. Ms. Sangiorgio was not dating anyone else, but she was aware that Vause was dating other people, including a woman known to Ms. Sangiorgio as Brooklyn. On January 13, 2023, Ms. Sangiorgio planned to pick Vause up when he finished work that evening. Vause worked as a server at a restaurant in Wayne. Ms. Sangiorgio spent the evening with friends at Pietro’s Prime in West Chester and waited until Vause was finished with work. Around 1:30 a.m. on January 14, 2023, Ms. Sangiorgio left Pietro’s Prime in her white GMC SUV and headed towards Berwyn Tavern in Berwyn. Vause asked Ms. Sangiorgio to pick him up from Berwyn Tavern as he had finished work early and headed there for a drink. At trial, Ms. Sangiorgio testified that once she arrived at Berwyn Tavern, she pulled into a parking spot to wait for Vause to come outside. While she was waiting, Brooklyn exited the tavern. Ms. Sangiorgio believed that Vause was romantically involved with Brooklyn, and so she approached Brooklyn and asked if she wanted to go for a ride and chat. Brooklyn joined Ms. Sangiorgio in her car. The two women drove about a mile and discussed Brooklyn’s relationship with Vause. Ms. Sangiorgio testified that while she was in the car with Brooklyn, Vause was calling her cellphone repeatedly. Once she -2- J-S33041-26 dropped Brooklyn off to her own car, Ms. Sangiorgio answered Vause’s call and asked where he needed to be picked up. She proceeded to a parking lot across the street from Berwyn Tavern where Vause met her. Vause got into the front passenger seat of Ms. Sangiorgio’s car and began yelling at her and demanding to know why she talked to Brooklyn. Ms. Sangiorgio began the fifteen minute drive from Berwyn Tavern to [] Sonesta Suites[, an extended stay hotel where Vause was living]. While she was driving, Vause started to physically attack Ms. Sangiorgio by repeatedly hitting her across her face with his open hand and squeezing her face. Ms. Sangiorgio described Vause as having his thumb on her right cheek, fingers on her left cheek, and his other hand on her forehead when he squeezed her face. Vause grabbed Ms. Sangiorgio by the back of her hair and smashed her head into the driver’s side window several times. He pushed her head against the window while she pleaded with him to stop so that she could drive him home safely. Vause continued his attack while screaming insults in Ms. Sangiorgio’s face until the pair stopped at Wawa in Frazer. When Vause went inside the store to buy cigarettes, Ms. Sangiorgio seized this opportunity to leave and drove away from the Wawa. Ms. Sangiorgio had driven about five miles away from the Wawa when she received a call from Vause. She unknowingly drove off with Vause’s backpack still in her car. On the phone call, Vause told Ms. Sangiorgio to come back to the Wawa and give him his backpack, so she went back to the Wawa. When she arrived back at the Wawa, Vause got back into Ms. Sangiorgio’s car and attacked her again. Ms. Sangiorgio testified that Vause was even more aggressive than he had been earlier. He started biting her, slapping her, squeezing her face, grabbing her hair and pushing her head into the window. When he got back into her car, Ms. Sangiorgio again started driving towards Sonesta Suites. When asked at trial why she did not just stop the car, Ms. Sangiorgio explained that Vause was someone she cared about, and she just wanted to get Vause home and out of her car. Vause’s attack on Ms. Sangiorgio did not end when they arrived at the Sonesta Suites. When they arrived, Ms. Sangiorgio -3- J-S33041-26 pulled into the parking lot and asked Vause to get out of her car. At that point, Vause noticed that Ms. Sangiorgio was using her cellphone to record videos of him attacking her. []Vause’s violence escalated while he demanded Ms. Sangiorgio give him her cellphone. Ms. Sangiorgio explained that Vause repeatedly lunged from the passenger seat and positioned himself over her in the driver’s seat with his head against hers, pinning her to the car window. Vause continued slapping and biting her face. Ms. Sangiorgio described feeling the large metal rings Vause wore on his fingers when he slapped her face and feeling Vause’s teeth in her cheek while he yelled at her. Ms. Sangiorgio refused to give Vause her phone because he wanted to delete the videos that she had taken while they were driving. Ms. Sangiorgio hid her phone under the driver’s seat and told Vause that she lost it. Vause then grabbed Ms. Sangiorgio by the back of her head and held her head down into the car’s center console. Ms. Sangiorgio testified that she had a hard time breathing while Vause held her in a curled-up position. Vause used his hands to push her head down to her chest and then further pushed her down until her face was against her knees. She could not speak, and Vause would not let her up. Ms. Sangiorgio testified that she felt “fuzzy” and like she had “tunnel vision” while her chin was tightly against her chest. While she was having a hard time breathing, Ms. Sangiorgio tried to stay calm and relaxed as she felt like she might faint. She further explained that she does not know how long Vause held her in that position, but she remembered thinking “[T]his is it. This is the end.” Then, Ms. Sangiorgio managed to hold her hand on the horn of the car with the hope that someone would hear it and call 911. She could hear the car horn, and eventually Vause let go of her hair. After Vause let go of her, Ms. Sangiorgio ran out of the car in an attempt to reach the Sonesta Suites leasing office. Vause chased after her, wrapped his arms around her, and stopped her from going any further. Vause grabbed her by her hair, walked back to where Ms. Sangiorgio’s car was parked, and threw her to the ground. Ms. Sangiorgio landed face down on the concrete, resulting in scrapes on her hands, knees, and hips. Every time she tried to get up, Vause pushed her down again. Ms. Sangiorgio described Vause sitting on her, biting her back and arms, -4- J-S33041-26 smooshing her face into the concrete and feeling one of Vause’s knees on her back and his other knee on her neck while she was lying face down on the ground. Ms. Sangiorgio begged Vause to get off her, but he refused, telling her he would not get off of her until she gave him her phone. This ongoing attack was overheard by guests of the Sonesta Suites. Colleen Falk MacLean, a 29-year-old engineer from Colorado, testified that she was staying at the Sonesta Suites on January 13-14, 2023, with her mother and her sister. Around 3:00 a.m. on January 14, 2023, Ms. Falk Maclean was woken up by her sister and alerted to a commotion in the parking lot near their room. Ms. Falk Maclean testified that she heard a woman’s voice screaming for help and a car horn honking. Ms. Falk MacLean specifically testified that she heard a woman scream “I’ll delete it.” From her hotel room window, Ms. Falk MacLean could see a man attacking a woman near a white SUV with an open door. Ms. Falk Maclean’s sister dialed 911, and her mother spoke to the 911 dispatcher. The 911 call was presented as evidence at trial. Eventually, Ms. Sangiorgio found her phone, unlocked it, and gave it to Vause. While standing next to the driver’s side of her car, Vause went through Ms. Sangiorgio’s text messages. Vause then reached into the back seat of Ms. Sangiorgio’s car, grabbed her son’s car seat, and threw it into the parking lot. At that point, Ms. Sangiorgio was able to grab her phone out of Vause’s hands. Ms. Sangiorgio grabbed her phone and ran around her car to the passenger door, climbed through the passenger seat, over the center console, into the driver’s seat, and drove off with her car doors open before stopping at the nearby Sunoco gas station. Officer Joseph Capuano testified that, on January 14, 2023, at 3:24 a.m., he responded to a report of a physical domestic [incident] between a male and a female at the Sonesta Suites. On his way to Sonesta Suites, Officer Capuano saw a white GMC SUV, which matched the description given in the dispatch, pulling into the Sunoco station. Officer Capuano pulled behind the SUV and activated his emergency lights. Once the vehicles were stopped in the Sunoco parking lot, Ms. Sangiorgio exited the vehicle. Officer Capuano observed her to be distraught, emotional, and in shock. He observed that she had multiple cuts, bite marks, and a bloody lip. The left side of her face was swollen, and she had a -5- J-S33041-26 golf ball size knot on her forehead. Her hair was frazzled, her clothes were disheveled, and her pants were ripped. Shortly after making contact with Ms. Sangiorgio and observing her injuries, Officer Capuano dispatched East Whiteland Ambulance Company. John Porter, an EMT firefighter, arrived at the Sunoco station around 3:30 a.m. to assist Ms. Sangiorgio. At trial, Mr. Porter testified to observing Ms. Sangiorgio with the same injuries described by Officer Capuano as well as welts and bruises on her arms, neck, and shoulder. Mr. Porter also noticed that Ms. Sangiorgio had loose hair hanging on her shoulders that looked like it had been pulled out of her head, and that every time she ran her hands through her hair, she would have clumps of loose hair in her hands. Mr. Porter testified that he knew Ms. Sangiorgio’s injuries were fresh because he observed the bruising go from appearing as redness to appearing yellow, then black and blue, then purple. Ms. Sangiorgio’s primary complaint to the EMTs was a severe headache, which raised concerns of a possible head injury. Ms. Sangiorgio was taken by ambulance to Paoli Hospital where she was treated by Gabrielle Salinas, [a physician assistant]. The Commonwealth offered Ms. Salinas as an expert witness in the field of emergency room medicine to educate the [trial c]ourt and to explain her findings and observations while treating Ms. Sangiorgio. Ms. Salinas testified to observing clear signs of bruising and swelling over Ms. Sangiorgio’s face and what appeared to be bite marks on both of her upper arms. Ms. Sangiorgio had “clear head trauma,” abrasions and contusions over her face, a hematoma above her left eye, and a hematoma over her left jaw. Ms. Salinas explained to the [trial c]ourt that a hematoma is usually the result of blunt trauma. She further explained that a CAT scan of Ms. Sangiorgio’s head, neck, and facial bones was ordered due to the amount of swelling and bruising on her face and the front of her neck, and Ms. Sangiorgio’s report that her neck had been stepped on. Ms. Sangiorgio was prescribed antibiotics to prevent infection from human bites and referred to a concussion clinic based on the outward signs of trauma to her head. Sergeant Anthony Falgiatore and Officer Paige Warfel of the East Whiteland Township Police Department testified regarding their involvement in this case. The officers were on duty when they received the 3:24 a.m. call for a physical domestic [incident] -6- J-S33041-26 at Sonesta Suites. They were made aware that Officer Capuano had located the victim at the Sunoco station. Officer Warfel testified that she drove to the Sunoco and observed Ms. Sangiorgio, who was visibly upset and had visible injuries to her face. Once she confirmed that Ms. Sangiorgio was safe with Officer Capuano, Officer Warfel returned to the Sonesta Suites in an attempt to find her attacker. Sergeant Falgiatore testified that his primary focus was identifying and locating the person responsible for her injuries. While Sergeant Falgiatore and Officer Warfel were at Sonesta Suites, Officer Capuano relayed information about the attack to them as he obtained it from Ms. Sangiorgio. Officers soon identified Vause as the person they were looking for and located him in his room at Sonesta Suites. Just before 4:00 a.m. on January 14, 2023, Sergeant Falgiatore, Officer Capuano, and Officer Warfel did a “knock and announce” on the room occupied by Vause. Sergeant Falgiatore testified that when Vause answered the door, he was totally naked. The officers are seen on Sergeant Falgiatore’s body camera footage putting a shirt on Vause. Officer Warfel placed Vause in handcuffs and transported him to the East Whiteland Township Police Station. Charges were filed against Vause the same day Vause was taken into custody. After further investigation, the charges were later refiled to include felony charges. Trial Court Opinion, 1/28/2026, at 2-10 (citing N.T., 12/4/2024, at 96-97, 134-35, 139-40, 148-51, 155, 157, 172-74, 189-91; N.T., 12/3/2024, at 62, 66, 73-74, 76, 86-88, 95, 98; 12/2/2024, 16-17, 68-82, 84-92; Exs. C-1 (911 call), C-6a-C-6d (videos from Ms. Sangiorgio’s phone); C-43 (photo of Ms. Sangiorgio at hospital)) (party designation altered; footnotes omitted). The Commonwealth charged Vause with aggravated assault as well as the aforementioned crimes.2 Of relevance here, before trial the ____________________________________________ 2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). -7- J-S33041-26 Commonwealth provided Vause evidence of two screenshots from a video Ms. Sangiorgio recorded with her phone during the attack. See N.T., 12/4/2024, Exs. C-11-C-12. The images showed one of Vause’s hands wrapped around the top of Ms. Sangiorgio’s head and his other hand wrapped around her chin and neck. Id. After Vause waived his right to a jury trial, the trial court held a bench trial spanning five days between December 2, 2024 and December 12, 2024. On the morning of the first day of trial, Officer Warfel spoke with Ms. Sangiorgio about her anticipated testimony regarding the screenshots. Officer Warfel then relayed to the trial court and parties that in the moment shown in the screenshots, Ms. Sangiorgio said she felt “excruciating pain” and “[t]here was a split second where she struggled to breathe, but it didn’t compare to another instance.” N.T., 12/2/2024, at 4. The other instance referred to a later portion of the attack when Vause forcefully pushed the back of Ms. Sangiorgio’s head down, with her chin tight to her chest, her face in her lap and knees, toward the vehicle’s center console such that she had “a hard time breathing,” could not speak, felt “fuzzy,” experienced “tunnel vision,” and thought she was going to die.3 See N.T., 12/4/2024, at 9-11; N.T., 12/3/2024, at 32-34, 50-52; N.T., 12/2/2024, at 85-87, 100-01. The parties ____________________________________________ 3 For ease of reference, we will refer to this occurrence as the “Chin-to-Chest Incident” and the moments depicted in the two screenshots as the “Neck Grab Incident.” -8- J-S33041-26 did not expressly place an agreement on the record before trial started but later confirmed during trial their agreement not to use the Neck Grab Incident as evidence of strangulation. N.T., 12/3/2024, at 28-38, 45-46, 50-51. On the second day of trial, the prosecutor asked Ms. Sangiorgio about a video she took with her phone during the attack, which included the Neck Grab Incident. Id. at 24, Ex. C-6d. She testified that at one point during that video, Vause grabbed her neck and throat with his thumb on one side and his fingers on the other. Id. at 26. When asked to describe the pressure or force Vause used when he grabbed her throat, she responded, “I mean, at one point I couldn’t speak. You know, I think you can hear me gasping for air. So it was pretty strong.” Id. at 26. Shortly after, the prosecutor asked Ms. Sangiorgio to describe how the Neck Grab Incident and Chin-to-Chest Incident differed: “And when he grabbed your throat, how is that – how was that time when you couldn’t breathe different from when you had to lay on the horn when he was holding your head down to the console?” Id. at 28. Defense counsel objected to this question based on the parties’ agreement and moved for a mistrial. Id. at 28-32. He argued that Officer Warfel’s proffer of Ms. Sangiorgio’s testimony before trial started differed from her actual testimony that she was gasping for air during the Neck Grab Incident. Id. at 28-31. He explained that if the officer’s proffer had included such testimony, he would have discussed with Vause whether he should have waived his right to a jury trial. Id. at 31. -9- J-S33041-26 The prosecutor explained that she was trying to have Ms. Sangiorgio distinguish between the Neck Grab Incident, during which she momentarily could not breathe, and the Chin-to-Chest Incident, during which she could not breathe for a prolonged period and honked the horn. Id. at 32-33. The prosecutor believed eliciting such testimony was consistent with Officer Warfel’s proffer of Ms. Sangiorgio’s testimony. Id. at 33, 36-37. After a discussion between the trial court and parties, the prosecutor confirmed she was not presenting evidence of Ms. Sangiorgio’s gasping for air and inability to speak during the Neck Grab Incident to prove the strangulation charge: THE COURT: So let’s just clarify this: So if I understand what [defense counsel] said, if you are representing, [prosecutor], that you’re not seeking to use the – could not speak and gasping for air as evidence of the strangulation, I will colloquize [Vause] and we’ll continue to proceed for trial. But if you are going to use it as an argument for the charge of strangulation, then I have to reconsider my decision. [PROSECUTOR]: I will not use it towards strangulation, but I do not believe that that ties my hands to argue it toward attempted [serious bodily injury].[4] * * * [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yeah. I have no problem with that. Yeah, for the ag[gravated] assault. ____________________________________________ 4 The Commonwealth charged Vause with aggravated assault under subsection (a)(1), which required it to prove Vause “attempt[ed] to cause serious bodily injury to another, or cause[d] such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). - 10 - J-S33041-26 Id. at 38 (footnote added). After a brief recess, the trial court stated that it did not believe the prosecutor acted improperly and continued: [Y]ou have to realize that I’m the factfinder. And the evidence I’ve heard is evidence that I’ve heard. And although, you know, whether or not this is a mistrial issue – I, you know, I’m a little bit on the fence about it. But I don’t want to try this case a second time. I mean, I’m concerned that, you know, [defense counsel] has repeatedly represented the purpose of [Vause’s] waiving the jury trial was a legal issue. * * * And you know, as [the prosecutor] said, and anybody whose [sic] litigated anything knows, that you can’t control a witness and what they say. I will say that I didn’t hear the gasping, but if it’s there, you know about it. Id. at 39. The trial court observed that it may not have heard any gasping because of “problems with the volume.” Id. at 40. The trial court then granted a mistrial, noting that it was “without any particular finding” of wrongdoing by the Commonwealth. Id. It explained that it granted the mistrial out of “an abundance of caution” to protect Vause’s right to a jury trial and ensure “the process is fair,” particularly where the strangulation charge could hinge on credibility. Id. After a discussion with defense counsel and his family, Vause elected to continue with the bench trial instead of withdrawing his waiver and proceeding to a jury trial. Id. at 43-44. The trial court conducted a colloquy of Vause to confirm his decision to proceed with the bench trial: - 11 - J-S33041-26 THE COURT: Will you state your name? [VAUSE]: Timothy Vause, your Honor. THE COURT: And, Mr. Vause, you are represented by [defense counsel]? [VAUSE]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And you waived your right to a jury trial last week; is that right? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: It’s my understanding that one of the reasons you waived your right to a jury trial is that you believed that what is in front of the Court is a legal issue; is that right? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And prior to court on Tuesday you were present when we talked about these two photographs; do you remember that? [VAUSE]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And I believe one of the photographs is a photograph of the video where you have your hands on [Ms.] Sangiorgio’s neck; is that correct? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And [defense counsel] elicited information from the Commonwealth to confirm that they were not using that action, you grabbing her by the throat at that moment in time, as evidence of strangulation; right? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Then we had an offer of proof on the side, and the Commonwealth confirmed, based on what they understood the witness was going to say, this was not their intention; right? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. - 12 - J-S33041-26 THE COURT: However, when the witness testified what she actually said was, that in that moment that you had your hand on her throat, she couldn’t talk and she gasped for air. Did you hear that? [VAUSE]: Yes, I heard the witness say that, your Honor. THE COURT: And that caused [defense counsel] to make a motion for mistrial because he believed that was outside the scope of what the Commonwealth represented they are going to present; right? [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And I came back and I thought about it. And I was -- I listened to the argument. I decided, based on that, I was going to grant the mistrial, because you have the right to be in front of a jury. If you’re telling me that you waived your right of a jury based on information that you -- based on the fact that that information wasn’t coming in, or that information wasn’t going to be presented to me, I needed to confirm that now that it was there, you can’t -- I can’t unring that bell. Do you understand that? [VAUSE]: I do understand, your Honor. THE COURT: And I asked [defense counsel] to -- you know, at that point, he asked for a mistrial. I said I was going to grant it. Then you and [defense counsel] and your family and [the prosecutor] and [Ms. Sangiorgio] all got into some plea negotiations and those broke down; is that correct? [VAUSE]: I didn’t hear you, your Honor. THE COURT: So then there was some talk about maybe possibly pleading. [VAUSE]: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And then that broke down; is that right? You guys couldn’t come to agreement? [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. - 13 - J-S33041-26 THE COURT: And then based on that lack of agreement, I asked [defense counsel] to confirm that you wanted to move forward -- that you did not want to move forward on a bench of trial, right; that - that I asked [defense counsel] to confirm with you that you wanted to go before a jury; that you no longer wanted to be tried by nonjury. [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And [defense counsel] has informed me that you have decided to continue, to forgo your right to a jury trial. [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And so, you know, that’s an absolute right you have. [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: And you understand that you now have that information that [the prosecutor] elicited from [Ms.] Sangiorgio, she didn’t elicit -- now that that testimony is in the record, that [Ms.] Sangiorgio gave about gasping for air, indicated that it was heard on video, but, I mean, I don’t know that I heard it on video. Now you know that’s part of this case. [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And it’s still your desire to have me make that decision as to your guilt or innocence, than go before a jury? [VAUSE]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And you have talked to [defense counsel] about the pluses and minuses of that? [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And you have spoken to your family about it? [VAUSE]: Yes, I have, your Honor. - 14 - J-S33041-26 THE COURT: And, sir, it is still your intention to continue to waive your right to a jury and proceed nonjury? [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And everything that I have heard so far is going to be incorporated in the record, you understand that? [VAUSE]: I do understand that. THE COURT: And, further, we’re going to take whatever testimony we can this afternoon. We’re going to take a brief lunch break. We’re going to finish whatever testimony we can this afternoon, then we’ll be back all day tomorrow, right? [VAUSE]: Okay, your Honor. THE COURT: And in the event we don’t finish this case tomorrow, we’ll be back next week, Monday. Okay. Understood? [VAUSE]: I fully understand, your Honor. THE COURT: And it is your intention, after consultation with your lawyer and your family, to continue this trial on a nonjury basis? [VAUSE]: That is correct, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor. Id. at 44-50. After the colloquy, the prosecutor sought clarification as to what evidence could be used to prove strangulation: [PROSECUTOR]: My understanding is that I can now ask [Ms.] Sangiorgio questions, and if whatever she says, as long as I’m not using those particular pieces of information towards the strangulation count – THE COURT: Right. Because I think the representation has been that the strangulation is, specifically, about him holding her chin to her chest and pressing her into the console. - 15 - J-S33041-26 All the other information and facts of the case are the facts of the case. But the specific facts that I understand that you are going to argue with respect to the strangulation are those. [PROSECUTOR]: Yes. THE COURT: Ones about the chin and the chest. [PROSECUTOR]: Correct, yes. * * * I had tried to ask before, although it was a compound question, that I just wanted her to compare those two moments in time to what we were presenting as the actual strangulation. What I believe she was going to say … was that those two moments were really brief, and although she couldn’t breathe, it was very brief, and nothing compared to what happened when she needed to lay on the horn. That’s what I thought she was going to say. THE COURT: Okay. [PROSECUTOR]: She added in a gasp, the air. I don’t know if she has anything else to say about that or not. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you understand that those are the questions that are going to be asked? [VAUSE]: Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that there’s going to be comparisons to how long she felt – [VAUSE]: Yes, I understand. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: – there’s going to be comparisons to how long she felt like she would not have been able to breathe, the different times, not going to be as long as the issue with the horn, where she was being bent over. But those are questions that are going to be asked. Do you understand that? [VAUSE]: Yes. - 16 - J-S33041-26 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Still willing to do a bench trial? [VAUSE]: Yes. Id. at 50-52. The bench trial continued. At the start of the fourth day of trial, which was after the Commonwealth finished calling its witnesses, the prosecutor advised the trial court that she had just learned of new evidence: another video that Ms. Sangiorgio recorded with her phone during the attack. N.T., 12/9/2024, at 2. The video was the first in time of all the videos admitted at trial from Ms. Sangiorgio’s phone; she recorded it while she was driving her vehicle. Id. at 3. The parties stipulated to its admission, the trial court admitted it as Exhibit C-63, and the video was played for the trial court. Id. at 3-4, Ex. C-63. At one point in the video, Ms. Sangiorgio can be heard coughing or gasping for air. Id., Ex. C-63. There is no indication in the record that the parties agreed not to use Exhibit C-63 as evidence of the strangulation charge or otherwise agreed to limit its use. The defense rested without presenting any evidence. The trial court announced its verdict on December 12, 2024, expressly finding Ms. Sangiorgio credible5 and stating the following with respect to the strangulation conviction: You grabbed her by the neck, and at one point in the video we can see your hands around the front of her neck, not long, ____________________________________________ 5 See N.T., 12/12/2024, at 2. During closing argument, defense counsel conceded Ms. Sangiorgio was credible. N.T., 12/9/2024, at 17. - 17 - J-S33041-26 that’s not the basis of the strangulation claim, but you had your hand. * * * [Y]ou grabbed her by the back of her head. You bent her head down to her chest where her neck – her chin rather is resting onto her chest, and then you not only were content in bending her down that way, you had to bend her at the waist all of the way down to her legs. [The prosecutor] represented you could hear her gasp on the audio, on the videos. You know what, you can, because that’s what I went back to listen to. You could hear her not be able to breath[e]. What did she testify to? She thought this was it. She got tunnel vision. Things got fuzzy. She worked hard to keep herself there so she didn’t faint, and then all of sudden, what happened, right, the light of her life showed up, her son. She laid on the horn. * * * I have no question in my mind that you know [sic] exactly what you did when you grabbed her by the back of the head, shoved her chin into her chest, doubled her over on her waist, held her there while she’s gasping for air, knowing. I believe without a doubt you knew what you were doing. So I’m going to convict you of the strangulation and the unlawful restraint, I believe the Commonwealth has proven that. N.T., 12/12/2024, at 6-8. The trial court acquitted Vause of aggravated assault but found him guilty of the remaining charges. 6 On February 27, 2025, the trial court sentenced Vause to an aggregate term of 78 to 166 months of incarceration; ____________________________________________ 6 Vause did not contest his guilt as to the charges of simple assault, REAP, and disorderly conduct. See Verdict Slip, 12/12/2024, at 2 nn. 1-3 (unpaginated); N.T., 12/9/2024, at 9; N.T., 12/2/2024, at 7-8. - 18 - J-S33041-26 it subsequently denied his post-sentence motion. 7 This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Vause asks us to review the following issues: I. Was the evidence insufficient to support Vause’s conviction for strangulation, 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2718(a)(1), where the Commonwealth failed to prove the mens rea element? II. Was the evidence insufficient to support Vause’s conviction for strangulation, 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2718(a)(1), where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Vause’s conduct established the statutory element of “applying pressure to the throat or neck” beyond a reasonable doubt? III. Did the trial court err by finding Vause guilty of strangulation, 18 Pa.C.S.[] § 2718(a)(1), when the [trial] court considered evidence that the parties had previously agreed was not admissible for the charge of strangulation? Vause’s Brief at 3 (party designation altered; issues reordered for ease of disposition; proposed answers omitted). Sufficiency of the Evidence In the first two claims we consider, Vause argues the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction of strangulation beyond a reasonable doubt. Vause’s Brief at 31-47. “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). ____________________________________________ 7 On March 7, 2025, Vause filed pro se post-sentence motions and a notice of appeal, docketed in this Court at 655 EDA 2025. After the trial court appointed counsel, Vause filed a counseled amended post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on July 1, 2025, and praecipe to strike the pro se appeal. That appeal was dismissed by this Court on April 28, 2025. - 19 - J-S33041-26 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 finder 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. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citatio