Com. v. Collins, J. ( 2016 )

J-S10025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JUSTIN J. COLLINS,
Appellee No. 1956 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered June 15, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008924-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2016
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s June 15, 2015 order
granting Justin J. Collins’ motion in limine to bar the Commonwealth from
presenting the testimony of the victim and another witness in this case,
unless the Commonwealth provides Collins “with accurate transcripts of
those witnesses’ prior recorded interviews by the Philadelphia Children’s
Alliance (PCA).” Trial Court Order, 6/15/15. The Commonwealth argues
that Commonwealth v. Robinson, 122 A.3d 367 (Pa. Super. 2015),
reargument denied (Pa. Super. 2015), compels this Court to reverse the
court’s order and remand for trial. After careful review, we agree with the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10025-16
Commonwealth. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand
for trial.
We summarize the procedural history of this case as follows. Collins
was charged with rape and related sexual offenses, allegedly committed
against a four-year-old, male victim. During the police investigation, the
victim and another witness were interviewed by PCA, and those interviews
were recorded.1 During pretrial discovery, the Commonwealth provided
Collins with DVD copies of the recorded interviews. However, on November
13, 2014, Collins filed a motion in limine requesting that the trial court “bar
testimonial evidence of the Commonwealth’s witnesses unless the
Commonwealth provides [Collins] with accurate transcripts of those
witnesses’ prior recorded interviews by [PCA]….” Motion In Limine,
11/13/14, at 1. On December 11, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a brief in
opposition to Collins’ motion.
The record indicates that the trial court took Collins’ motion in limine
under advisement, pending this Court’s ruling on the same issue in
Robinson. In that case, we consolidated three separate appeals from
orders identical to the one we examine herein, each of which was issued by
the same trial judge presiding over Collins’ case. While, in the present case,
the trial court initially indicated that it would wait to rule on Collins’ motion
____________________________________________
1
The identity of the other witness interviewed by PCA is not clear.
-2-
J-S10025-16
in limine until Robinson was decided, the court ultimately did not do so,
instead issuing the order granting Collins’ motion on June 15, 2015.
The Commonwealth filed a timely, interlocutory appeal as of right by
certifying in its notice of appeal that the court’s June 15, 2015 order
“terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution.” Notice of Appeal,
6/29/15; see also Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (“In a criminal case, under the
circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as
of right from an order that does not end the entire case where the
Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution.”).2 The Commonwealth also filed
a voluntary Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court issued a Rule
1925(a) opinion on July 8, 2015. Herein, the Commonwealth presents one
question for our review: “Where the Commonwealth produced a video
record of interviews of the child victim and a witness, did the lower court err
and abuse its discretion by suppressing the Commonwealth’s testimonial
evidence unless the Commonwealth also created a verbatim written
transcript?” Commonwealth’s Brief at 1.
After the Commonwealth filed the present appeal, and the trial court
issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion, Robinson was decided on August 3, 2015.
The Robinson panel reversed the three orders appealed from there, “which
____________________________________________
2
We note that Collins does not challenge the appealability of the trial court’s
June 15, 2015 order.
-3-
J-S10025-16
precluded the testimony of the victims at trial because the Commonwealth
refused to provide written transcripts of the victims’ video interviews” with
PCA. Robinson, 122 A.3d at 369. In doing so, the Robinson panel noted
that “the Commonwealth provided [the defendants] during discovery with
DVD copies of all the victims’ PCA interviews” and, “[t]hus, the evidence was
equally available to [the defendants] in a source other than a written
transcript.” Id. at 373. The Court stressed that the Commonwealth has no
“duty to provide evidence in a form that the defendant demands for the
convenience of the defense.” Id. at 373. Additionally, the Robinson panel
held that “the court abused its discretion in sanctioning the Commonwealth
by precluding the victims’ testimony at trial, which effectively dismissed the
charges against [the defendants].” Id. at 374. This Court declared that
“[t]he sanction was too severe under the circumstances, particularly where
[the defendants] have suffered no undue prejudice.” Id.Here, the Commonwealth argues that we are bound by Robinson to
reverse the court’s order in the present case. Collins does not even
acknowledge our decision in Robinson, let alone attempt to distinguish the
trial court’s order in this case from the orders reversed there. Additionally,
the trial court offers the same rationale to support its current order as it did
to justify the orders reversed by the Robinson panel. Namely, the court
relies “on a similar procedure” of transcribing video recordings ostensibly
imposed by federal courts. Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/15, at 3. The court also
maintains that Rules 403, 613(a), and 611 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
-4-
J-S10025-16
Evidence, and 42 Pa.C.S. § 323, provide it with “inherent rule making
authority and discretionary power … to require that the Commonwealth
provide an accurate written transcript of all of the PCA interviews conducted
with the complainant-witnesses, and to invoke the remedy of exclusion of
those witnesses in the event the transcripts were not provided.” Id. at 4.
In rejecting the trial court’s identical rationale in Robinson, we
stated:
[T]he general rules and statutes the court relied on did not grant
the court rule making authority or the discretionary power to
order the Commonwealth to prepare written transcripts in
addition to the video copies of the interviews. The court’s bald
assertion that it is common practice in federal courts to
introduce a transcript with every tape lacks confirmation. There
is no rule of law, statute, or case that requires the
Commonwealth to reduce to writing that which is already on
video and disclosed to the defense.
Robinson, 122 A.3d at 373-74 (internal citation to the record omitted).
Based on Robinson, we agree with the Commonwealth that the trial
court’s June 15, 2015 order must be reversed. Here, the Commonwealth
provided the defense with DVD copies of the recorded interviews of the
victim and the other witness, yet the trial court ordered the Commonwealth
to transcribe those recordings for the convenience of the defense. The
court’s order further stated that if the Commonwealth failed to provide those
transcripts, the Commonwealth would be precluded from presenting the
testimony of the victim and witness at trial. Because Robinson held that
identical orders issued by the trial court were erroneous and an abuse of the
court’s discretion, we reach the same conclusion in the present case.
-5-
J-S10025-16
Accordingly, we reverse the court’s June 15, 2015 order and remand for
trial.
Order reversed. Case remanded for trial. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/10/2016
-6-