Com. v. Caleb, T. ( 2016 )

J-S35021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
THOMAS CALEB,
Appellant No. 1883 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 2, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-51-CR-0006440-2012
CP-51-CR-0006441-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 20, 2016
Appellant, Thomas Caleb, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
12½ to 25 years’ incarceration, followed by 10 years’ probation, imposed
after a jury convicted him of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI),
incest, endangering the welfare of a child, and indecent assault. After
careful review, we conclude that all of Appellant’s issues are meritless,
except for his challenge to the legality of a mandatory minimum sentence
imposed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718 (Sentences for offenses against infant
persons). Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and
remand for resentencing.
The trial court summarized the facts of Appellant’s offenses as follows:
On May 14, 2012, Appellant was arrested for committing
sexual acts with his half-sister, R.M., age fourteen at the time of
J-S35021-16
the incident, and his niece, S.G., age twelve at the time of the
incident. In April of 2012, Appellant performed oral sex on R.M.
and forced R.M. to reciprocate. On another spring day in 2012,
Appellant performed oral sex on S.G., attempted to have
intercourse with her, and showed her a video on his phone of
him receiving oral sex from his girlfriend. That same day, S.G.
reported the sexual abuse to her mother’s boyfriend who, at
S.G.’s request, did not inform anyone of this report until one
week later when he told S.G.’s mother that she needed to speak
with her daughter and niece[, R.M.] The mother immediately
spoke with S.G., learned of the abuse, and took both girls to the
detective division to make formal statements.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 5/18/15, at cover page.1
As noted by the trial court, Appellant was arrested on May 14, 2012,
and charged with the above-stated offenses. A jury trial was conducted in
November of 2013, at the close of which Appellant was convicted of each of
those crimes. On June 6, 2014, the court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years’ imprisonment, which included a
mandatory term of 10 to 20 years’ incarceration for Appellant’s IDSI offense
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718. Appellant also received a consecutive term
of 2½ to 5 years’ imprisonment for his incest offense, and an aggregate
term of 10 years’ probation for his remaining crimes.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a timely Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, he
raises four claims for our review:
____________________________________________
1
The trial court’s opinion begins numbering on the second page, leaving the
first page of the opinion (from which this excerpt was quoted) unnumbered.
-2-
J-S35021-16
1. Did the lower court err in denying [A]ppellant’s motion in
limine to allow [A]ppellant to present evidence that he had
argued with one of the complainants over her relationship with
an older man, where the evidence was relevant to establish that
the complainant had a motive to lie and [Appellant] did not seek
to introduce evidence of [the] victim’s sexual activity?
2. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in allowing the
Commonwealth to elicit testimony from two detectives that it
was common in their experience for child victims to disclose
information over time?
3. Did the lower court err in requiring [A]ppellant to testify with
a sheriff standing behind him on the witness stand?
4. Is [A]ppellant’s mandatory minimum sentence
unconstitutional in light of Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct.
2151 (2013)?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant’s first issue challenges the court’s decision to preclude him
from presenting certain evidence.
The admissibility of evidence is solely within the discretion of the
trial court, and a trial court's evidentiary rulings will be reversed
on appeal only upon abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion
will not be found merely because an appellate court might have
reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest
unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or
such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. Moreover, an
erroneous ruling by a trial court on an evidentiary issue does not
necessitate relief where the error was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868, 873–74 (Pa. 2011) (citation
omitted).
By way of background, Appellant filed a motion in limine in January of
2013, and a hearing was conducted on that motion on January 14, 2013.
There, Appellant argued that he should be permitted to admit evidence that
-3-
J-S35021-16
one of his victims, R.M., had been involved in a relationship with an older,
married man and, when Appellant had discovered the relationship, he and
R.M. had argued. N.T. Hearing, 1/14/13, at 13-14. During the argument,
Appellant threatened to reveal R.M.’s relationship to her family and, shortly
after that argument, R.M. alleged that Appellant had sexually abused her.
Id. at 14. Appellant contended that evidence of R.M.’s relationship with the
older man, and the argument that occurred between her and Appellant,
should be admitted to demonstrate R.M.’s “motive to fabricate or lie and
make up allegations against [Appellant].” Id.
The Commonwealth argued that the court should deny Appellant’s
motion because presenting the evidence of R.M.’s relationship with the older
man would violate the Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104.2 Ultimately, the
trial court agreed, and issued an order denying Appellant’s motion in limine.
____________________________________________
2
The Rape Shield Law states:
(a) General rule.--Evidence of specific instances of the alleged
victim's past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged
victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the
alleged victim's past sexual conduct shall not be admissible in
prosecutions under this chapter except evidence of the alleged
victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent of
the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise
admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence.
(b) Evidentiary proceedings.--A defendant who proposes to
offer evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct
pursuant to subsection (a) shall file a written motion and offer of
proof at the time of trial. If, at the time of trial, the court
determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S35021-16
However, new counsel entered his appearance on Appellant’s behalf in
October of 2013, and at a jury voir dire proceeding conducted on November
14, 2013, that attorney presented an oral motion in limine, again requesting
that the court admit evidence of R.M.’s relationship with the older man. At
the hearing, defense counsel explained that upon further investigation, he
discovered that Appellant had discovered R.M.’s relationship with the older
man, and that three to four weeks prior to R.M.’s making abuse allegations
against Appellant, Appellant had directed R.M. to end the relationship or he
was “going to kill [the] guy.” N.T. Hearing, 11/14/13, at 9. Defense counsel
claimed that
[a]t that point, the relationship between [Appellant] and [R.M.]
soured. It completely fell apart. There was a breakdown in
communication. She refused to talk to him anymore. They were
at odds with one another, and they lived in the same house.
Three to four weeks later, RM makes these accusations, and
[Appellant is] arrested and he’s taken out of the house. And
from what I have from [R.M.’s] Facebook page with this [older
man], she continues on [with her relationship with him].
Id. at 9-10.
The Commonwealth again argued that the Rape Shield Law precluded
this evidence, noting that the court had already ruled as much in January of
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
their faces, the court shall order an in camera hearing and shall
make findings on the record as to the relevance and admissibility
of the proposed evidence pursuant to the standards set forth in
subsection (a).
18 Pa.C.S. § 3104.
-5-
J-S35021-16
2013. Id. at 15-16. In response, defense counsel maintained that evidence
regarding the context of Appellant’s argument with R.M., i.e., R.M.’s
relationship with the older man and Appellant’s threat to her to end it, did
not violate the Rape Shield Law. Id. at 17. Counsel explained:
[Defense Counsel]: The attorney for the Commonwealth keeps
saying this violates rape shield, this violates rape shield. The
Rape Shield [Law] was created in order to prevent testimony
regarding the sexual activity of the complainant that showed this
person who is the victim or alleged victim of a crime had had sex
before and therefor she was unchaste. … I’m not asking to have
any of that type of information admitted, to her lack of chastity,
to her sexual relationship with any man whatsoever. In fact, in
my argument a little while ago, I didn’t even bring out the fact
that she might have had a sexual relationship with this older
man. I don’t want any of that to come in. My argument is
limited to the notion of motive for retribution. And there has to -
- that motive for retribution, it didn’t happen inside of a bubble.
There’s a larger world that it did happen within, and now there’s
corroborating evidence [i.e., R.M.’s Facebook postings,] that
does show a motive for actual retribution based upon real-world
facts.
Id. at 17-18. The trial court ultimately ruled that Appellant could offer
evidence that R.M. and he had engaged in an argument shortly before her
allegations of abuse, but denied Appellant’s request to present evidence
regarding the argument being about R.M.’s relationship with an older man.
Id. at 16.
Now, on appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s decision, arguing
that “the lower court was obligated, at a minimum, to conduct an in camera
hearing, hear[] the proffered testimony, and determine whether the
probative value of the information outweighed any prejudice. Having been
-6-
J-S35021-16
denied that hearing, [A]ppellant is entitled to a new trial.” Appellant’s Brief
at 11-12. Notably, however, Appellant at no point requested, at the
November 14, 2013 hearing or at the hearing in January of 2013, that the
court conduct an in camera hearing to consider R.M.’s testimony. While the
Rape Shield Law requires the trial court to conduct such a hearing if it
“determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces,”
Appellant explicitly argued at the hearing that the Rape Shield Law did not
apply to the evidence he sought to admit. Thus, Appellant cannot now
contend that the court erred by not holding an in camera hearing when
Appellant did not request that the court do so.
Nevertheless, Appellant does argue that the evidence regarding R.M.’s
relationship with another man should not have been precluded. In this vein,
Appellant discusses several cases wherein this Court held that evidence of a
victim’s prior sexual activity was admissible to demonstrate his/her motive
in making abuse allegations against the defendant. See Appellant’s Brief at
9-11 (discussing Commonwealth v. Black, 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super.
1985), Commonwealth v. Wall, 606 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. 1992), and
Commonwealth v. Eck, 605 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 1992)).
In Black, the appellant was convicted of molesting his thirteen-year-
old daughter in a case that turned on a battle of credibility between Black
and his victim. At trial, Black was prevented from introducing evidence of
the victim’s sexual conduct with one of her brothers, despite the following
facts:
-7-
J-S35021-16
While the sexual incident was found to have occurred
during Christmas, 1979, testimony indicated that [the victim]'s
complaints began to surface almost three months later, near the
end of March, 1980. These complaints coincided with violent
arguments between [Black] and prosecutrix' fifteen-year-old
brother, which culminated in the brother leaving home and
separating from the family, including prosecutrix. [The victim]
admitted wanting her brother back in the home, and other
testimony indicated that as soon as [Black] was arrested and
removed, the fifteen-year-old brother contacted the family and
sought to return home. In his defense, [Black] offered to show
through cross-examination that [the victim] had maintained an
ongoing, consensual sexual relationship with this brother, which
ended when the brother left home. [Black] contends that the
true extent of prosecutrix' bias against him could only be
revealed by showing the abnormal, sexual relationship which she
had with her brother and which had been terminated by [Black]'s
dispute with her brother. Specifically, [Black] urges that [the
victim]'s testimony can only be weighed fairly when measured
against her desire, first, to punish [Black] for his interference
with her sexual relationship with her brother, and, second, to
remove [Black] from the home so that her brother might return
and resume the relationship.
Black, 487 A.2d at 398.
In Black, the trial court excluded this evidence under the Rape Shield
Law. This Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to hold an in
camera hearing, with the following instructions:
At this hearing, the trial court should determine the following as
a matter of record to be preserved for appellate review: (1)
whether the proposed evidence is relevant to show bias or
motive or to attack credibility; (2) whether the probative value
of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (3) whether
there are alternative means of proving bias or motive or to
challenge credibility.
Id. at 401.
Although superficially analogous to the instant case, Black is
distinguishable. The appellant in Black was denied the ability to present
-8-
J-S35021-16
any evidence pertaining to the victim’s relationship with her brother. As was
evident from the instructions we gave to the trial court in Black, its blunt
application of the Rape Shield Law prevented critical inquiries into the
probative versus prejudicial effect of the proffered evidence, and gave no
consideration to ‘alternative means’ of introducing the evidence so as to
minimize Rape Shield concerns.
Here, by contrast, the trial court implicitly acknowledged that the
evidence in question was probative of a legitimate purpose: the victim’s
motive to lie. But, in a compromise reflecting both the probative value of
this evidence and legitimate Rape Shield concerns, the trial court permitted
Appellant to present evidence of his argument with the victim, but did not
permit him to implicate the victim’s sexual relationship with another man.
Thus, the trial court here did precisely what the trial court in Black did not
do: it considered the probative and prejudicial value of the evidence in
question, and arrived at a solution that ostensibly maximized both
Appellant’s interest in proving the victim’s motive to lie and the
Commonwealth’s interest in avoiding the defense’s exploitation of the
victim’s sexual history.
Appellant believes the trial court’s ruling went too far. Appellant
“sought to introduce evidence that R.M. had been involved in a relationship
with an older man with a criminal record, and that [A]ppellant had
threatened to kill that man if R.M. did not terminate the relationship.”
Appellant’s Brief at 11. Appellant contends that the court’s limiting the
-9-
J-S35021-16
evidence to “vague testimony of an argument is simply not of the same
caliber to explain the bias or basis for retribution.” Id. Appellant also
maintains that the court’s decision was an abuse of discretion in light of the
fact that he “attempted to limit the prejudice to R.M. by refraining from any
mention of a physical relationship and merely focusing on the argument.”
Id.
There is at least some theoretical merit to this claim. We agree that
the mere mention of a fight between siblings is significantly less impactful of
a reason to fabricate charges of this severity. All siblings argue and fight,
but not all siblings threaten to kill the adult paramour of an underage sibling.
Moreover, it should be possible to identify the nature of the argument
between Appellant and R.M. without exposing unnecessary details about the
nature of R.M.’s relationship with the other man.
Nevertheless, we decline to grant Appellant a new trial based on his
assertion that he was not able to present a full defense regarding R.M.’s
motive to fabricate her allegations, where Appellant himself did not develop
this defense to the fullest extent possible in his own testimony.
Appellant did testify regarding the argument. After indicating that he
had a great relationship with R.M., the following direct examination took
place:
Q At some point did that relationship change?
A Yes, it did.
- 10 -
J-S35021-16
Q Okay. And what was the event that caused that
relationship to change?
A About a month and a half, about two months before I was
arrested, we had a real big argument, not just like a regular
argument that you would normally have back and forth with your
sibling, but it was a big blowup and our relationship went sour.
…
A Well, the end result of the argument resulted in me and
her not really speaking anymore. We were just a hi-bye basis,
or say hello to each other in passing, like what’s up or so. But at
the very end of the argument she told me she hated me.
N.T., 11/19/14, at 156-57.
However, when asked if he could think of “one reason” why R.M. and
S.G. “would come forward and say that [he] did these things to them[,]”
Appellant replied, “I don’t understand why they would say this, and I don’t
know a reason they have for saying this.” N.T. Trial, 11/19/14, at 212. Yet,
the court’s ruling did not preclude Appellant from testifying that he had an
argument with R.M. that was so severe that R.M. chose to fabricate sexual
abuse allegations against him. Appellant took the stand and chose not to
offer that defense consistently throughout his testimony. Instead, after
defense counsel questioned him about this heated argument with R.M.,
Appellant went on throughout the remainder of his direct- and cross-
examinations to repeatedly testify that he had no idea why R.M. was alleging
the abuse.
Specifically, defense counsel asked him “why would two girls make up
a story like this about you?” to which Appellant replied, “I have no idea. I
don’t know why they would do something like this. This is my family, and to
- 11 -
J-S35021-16
me it’s just disgusting and I don’t know why.” N.T. Trial, 11/19/14, at 181.
Later, defense counsel asked him if he had “[a]ny idea why [R.M.] would
make something up like [the abuse allegations],” and Appellant replied, “No,
I do not have any idea why she would make something up like that, and I’m
trying to get to the bottom of it now….” Id. 194. On cross-examination,
after the Commonwealth noted that Appellant “already testified on multiple
occasions that there’s not one reason [he] can think of for why these girls
would come forward and say that [he] did these things to him,” Appellant
once again reiterated that that was “[c]orrect” and said, “I don’t understand
why they would say this, and I don’t know a reason they have for saying
this.” Id. at 222.
We also find notable that on cross-examination, Appellant downplayed
the damaging impact of the fight that he previously testified had ‘soured’ his
relationship with R.M. In that exchange, the Commonwealth asked
Appellant, “And aside from this one fight that you had talked about, you and
[R.M.] had a great relationship, right?” Id. at 212. Appellant answered:
“Yes. We had our regular differences as far as brother-sister -- little sibling
arguments, but just that one big incident, and that was all. It was a good
relationship.” N.T. Trial, 11/19/14, at 212.
Appellant’s testimony indicates that he chose not to fully pursue the
defense that R.M. had a motive to lie or fabricate the charges against him.
This cannot be explained by the court’s ruling, as the court permitted
Appellant to present evidence that he and R.M. had argued, and that after
- 12 -
J-S35021-16
the argument their “relationship went sour” and R.M. told Appellant “she
hated [him].” Id. at 156-57. Had the court totally precluded evidence
regarding Appellant’s and R.M.’s argument, Appellant could contend that the
court prohibited him from presenting this defense. However, the court
permitted Appellant to testify about his argument with R.M., yet Appellant
chose not to pursue that defense to the fullest degree possible under the
trial court’s ruling. He cannot now claim that he was prejudiced by the
omission of that defense.
We are further convinced that any error in the exclusion of this
evidence was harmless by the fact that there were multiple victims in this
case. Here, R.M.’s accusations were corroborated by the fact that Appellant
was also sexually abusing S.G. This was not the case in Black, which pitted
only one victim’s word against the defendant in that case, rendering motive-
to-lie evidence in that case far more probative than in the instant matter.
Moreover, R.M. did not even come forward until after S.G. made her own
allegations, making it even more doubtful that R.M.’s claims were
manufactured as a direct response to her argument with Appellant.
Wall is also distinguishable from the instant case. In Wall, the
defendant had
filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence that the
victim had been removed from her mother's home and placed in
foster care after being sexually assaulted by her mother's
paramour. Defense counsel argued in an in camera hearing on
this issue that evidence of the victim's previous participation in
the successful prosecution of an adult male who had sexually
abused her was relevant to his defense of fabrication because it
- 13 -
J-S35021-16
tended to show that the victim may have been peculiarly aware
of the fact that such a sexual abuse claim could lead to her
removal from her aunt's home. Defense counsel urged that in
view of the fact that there existed otherwise admissible evidence
of the victim's desire to leave her aunt's home because of the
strict discipline that her aunt often imposed, the evidence of the
victim's prior participation in a materially similar prosecution was
logically necessary to complete the fabrication theory. The trial
court denied this motion, however, based on the Pennsylvania
Rape Shield law, and allowed only the introduction of evidence
that the victim resided with appellant and his wife because there
was a “problem” at her mother's home.
Wall, 606 A.2d at 452 (footnote omitted).
Relying on Black, the Wall Court reversed the trial court’s decision,
noting first that:
Here, the excluded evidence established that the victim had,
three years before this charge, alleged that her mother's
paramour had sexually molested her. This, in and of itself, is not
significant. Far more important, however, is the fact that the
proffer also established that the victim participated in the
successful prosecution of her former abuser, and that
participation ultimately lead to her removal from her mother's
house. From this, the jury could have inferred that the victim
had, at the time she alleged that appellant had sexually abused
her, labored under the impression that the making of another
sexual abuse claim could result in her removal from her aunt and
uncle's house. The victim's peculiar knowledge of the content
and of the potential consequences of a sexual abuse claim was
thus relevant to establish why the victim might have chosen to
fabricate a specific type of claim, one of sexual abuse against an
adult male in the house in which she lived and wanted to leave.
Id. at 462.
Thus, the Wall court concluded as follows:
In sum we find that in light of the evidence that the victim
wanted to leave her aunt's home and harsh discipline, the
specific proffer of uncontested evidence that the victim had been
previously removed from a home in which she had successfully
alleged that she had been sexually abused was relevant, non-
- 14 -
J-S35021-16
cumulative and more probative than prejudicial. To have
excluded such evidence, under these peculiar circumstances,
was to frustrate the truth-determining process by preventing
consideration of exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Id. at 466 (footnoted omitted) (emphasis added).
Notably, as was the case in Black, the critical issue in Wall was the
weighing of the credibility of a single victim against the credibility of the
defendant. Moreover, the Wall court stressed that it was the “peculiar”
facts of that case that permitted evidence of the victim’s prior, successful
sexual abuse allegations, evidence which fit squarely within the defense’s
fabrication theory.3 Id. Here, however, when afforded the opportunity to
do so, Appellant repeatedly professed to have no knowledge of why R.M.
would fabricate charges against him. Thus, we conclude that Wall also does
not support reversal in this case.
Finally, in Eck, a twenty-three-year-old defendant was accused of
performing oral sex on his fifteen-year-old foster brother, T.H. The defense
sought, by motion in limine, to admit evidence of T.H.’s juvenile record,
which would have demonstrated that T.H. had performed that same act on
his five-year-old brother in a different foster home. Eck argued that this
evidence would substantiate his claim that T.H. had fabricated his accusation
____________________________________________
3
In Wall, other admitted evidence, derived from the victim’s own
testimony, demonstrated that the victim had repeatedly acted out in other
ways in her efforts to escape her aunt’s home, such that the sexual abuse
accusations appeared to be an escalation of those efforts.
- 15 -
J-S35021-16
against Eck. The trial court denied Eck’s motion in limine as barred under
the Rape Shield Law.
On appeal, this Court reversed that decision. Again, like Black and
Wall, we were confronted with a case where the credibility of the defendant
was at odds with the credibility of a single victim. At the time he made his
accusations, Eck’s victim was facing the prospect of violating his probation
for underage drinking. The theory of the defense was that the victim had
fabricated the charges against Eck in order to elicit sympathy for himself,
because, “as the perpetrator of a sexual offense, T.H. learned that victims
receive more favorable treatment than do perpetrators.” Eck, 605 A.2d at
1255. In reversing, we remanded, as we did in Black, for “an in camera
hearing to perform the requisite balancing” of probative versus prejudicial
value of that evidence. Id.Eck also does not compel reversal. Instantly, the trial court
performed the ‘requisite balancing’ that was lacking in Eck. And, although
we conclude that the trial court likely erred by excessively circumscribing the
evidence Appellant could admit regarding R.M.’s relationship with an older
man, we still conclude that error was harmless in the specific circumstances
of this case. Again, Appellant failed to exploit what latitude he was given to
present the contested evidence, and the evidence had a diminished
probative value given the corroboration provided by S.G., and the fact that
R.M.’s allegations followed S.G.’s. Accordingly, for all the aforementioned
- 16 -
J-S35021-16
reasons, we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim, as
whatever evidentiary error occurred was harmless.
Next, Appellant claims the trial court erred when it permitted the
Commonwealth to elicit testimony from two detectives that it was common
in their experience for child victims to disclose information over time.
Appellant complains that “[b]ecause testimony about common behaviors of
child victims of sexual assault to explain why they may have divulged
information over time was inadmissible to [A]ppellant’s case and, in any
event, was not given by a qualified expert, the trial court abused its
discretion in allowing the Commonwealth to elicit the testimony. As such, he
is entitled to a new trial.” Appellant’s Brief at 13.
Appellant refers to the following incidents at trial. First, during the
testimony of Detective Gregory Meissler, the following transpired:
[Prosecutor:] Calling your attention to your statement from
[S.G.], and as counsel told you on cross-[examination], she has
disclosed additional behavior from [Appellant], is it common in
your experience for children to --
[Defense counsel]: Objection. This calls for speculation.
[Prosecutor]: in the detective’s experience, counsel opened
the door based on his question.
THE COURT: Let me hear the question.
[Prosecutor]: Okay.
[Prosecutor:] In your experience is it common for children to
give additional disclosures after the first interview?
[Defense counsel]: I renew my objection.
- 17 -
J-S35021-16
THE COURT: That’s sustained. Can you rephrase or
something?
[Prosecutor]: Yes.
[Prosecutor:] Have you ever experienced a child giving
additional disclosures after the first interview.
[Defense counsel]: I renew my objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
[Detective Meissler:] Yes.
N.T., 11/19/14, at 59-60.
Next, during the testimony of Detective Thomas Brown, the following
exchange occurred:
[Prosecutor:] In – have you been made aware that [R.M.] has
provided that additional disclosure that she had provided oral
sex to [Appellant]?
[Detective Brown:] No.
[Prosecutor:] Okay. Approximately how many interviews with
children have you conducted in your career?
[Defense counsel]: Objection to relevance.
THE COURT: Noted. But overruled. Go ahead.
[Detective Brown]: I’d put it in the thousands.
[Prosecutor:] And, in your experience have you had children give
additional disclosures --
[Defense counsel]: I renew my objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Noted. Overruled. Go ahead.
[Detective Brown]: Yes.
[Prosecutor:] Is that something that only happened once or
substantial times?
[Detective Brown:] I think it’s happened quite a few times.
- 18 -
J-S35021-16
Id. at 90-91.
With regard to Detective Meissler, it is clear that the trial court
sustained Appellant’s objection as it was presented: that the Commonwealth
had called for mere speculation. The question was then rephrased to elicit
the detective’s direct knowledge of such instances. Appellant now presents
us with a claim that the trial court erred by permitting speculative testimony
about ‘common behaviors of child victims of sexual assault.’ No such
response was permitted with respect to Detective Meissler; therefore,
Appellant’s claim lacks a foundation in the record. To the extent that
Appellant now claims that the testimony elicited from Detective Meissler was
inadmissible because it was not given by a qualified expert, Appellant waived
that claim by not raising it before the trial court. “Issues not raised in the
lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
With regard to Detective Brown, the Commonwealth did not even ask
a question eliciting speculation from the witness regarding ‘common
behaviors of child victims of sexual assault.’ Thus, Appellant’s claim is
meritless with respect to his testimony as well. Similarly, any claim
regarding the admissibility of the testimony given by Detective Brown based
on the argument that he was not a qualified expert witness was similarly
waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Next, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it required him
to either testify before the jury from counsel’s table, or, if he were to take
- 19 -
J-S35021-16
the stand, that he would have to do so with a sheriff standing behind him.
Appellant argues that, “[b]y not allowing [him] to take the witness stand
free of a visible security presence and testify like every other witness, the
trial court sent a clear message to the jury that he was dangerous and
deprived him of his right to the presumption of innocence.” Appellant’s Brief
at 14. Ultimately, Appellant did take the stand with the sheriff standing
behind him, and the trial court instructed the jury that “[A] defendant in a
criminal case is always escorted by the sheriff. Don’t think anything of it.
That’s his job being here in a criminal case.” N.T., 11/19/13, 143.
Appellant cites a single case to support his argument,
Commonwealth v. Mayhugh, 336 A.2d 379 (Pa. Super. 1975). In
Mayhugh, a juror inadvertently observed Mayhugh being restrained by two
sheriffs, one of whom was grasping Mayhugh’s arm, as Mayhugh was
brought into the courtroom. Defense counsel requested a mistrial, which
was denied by the trial court. We affirmed. Nevertheless, we recognized
the following principles:
Due process of law guarantees respect for those personal
immunities which are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience
of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,’ Snyder v.
Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed.
674 (1934), or are ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 152,
82 L.Ed. 288 (1937). See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165,
72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). Fundamental to the concept
of due process is the principle that every person who stands
accused of a crime is entitled to a fair and impartial trial.
Massey v. Moore, 348 U.S. 105, 75 S.Ct. 145, 99 L.Ed. 135(1954); Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed.
- 20 -
J-S35021-16
1595 (1942). Our courts long ago recognized that an essential
ingredient of a fair trial is the presumption of innocence with
which an accused is clothed. ‘The principle that there is a
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the
undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement
lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453, 15 S.Ct. 394, 403,
39 L.Ed. 481 (1895).
‘The presumption of innocence,’ as noted by the court in
Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 492, 174 P.2d 717, 718
(1946), ‘requires the garb of innocence;’ and the defendant is
entitled to all the physical indicia consistent with innocence.
Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F.2d 101 (6th Cir. 1973), cert.
denied, 416 U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1976, 40 L.Ed.2d 310 (1974).
Thus, from the earliest days of the common law a defendant in a
criminal trial had the right to appear in court free of restraint.
State v. Roberts, 86 N.J.Super. 159, 206 A.2d 200 (1965)
(tracing the history of this rule from 1678); See Kranskopf,
Physical Restraint of the Defendant in the Courtroom, 15 St.
Louis U.L.J. 351 (1971). This right can be abrogated only in
exceptional circumstances, such as where necessary to prevent
escape, to protect those persons in the courtroom, and to
maintain order during the trial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Cruz, 226 Pa.Super. 241, 311 A.2d 691 (1973); Woodards v.
Cardwell, 430 F.2d 978 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S.
911, 91 S.Ct. 874, 27 L.Ed.2d 809 (1971).
The rule is stated in the A.B.A. Project on Standards for
Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Trial by Jury s 4.1(c)
(Approved Draft, 1968): ‘Defendants and witnesses should not
be subjected to physical restraint while in court unless the trial
judge has found such restraint reasonably necessary to maintain
order.’ The comments explain that physical bonds may create
prejudice in the minds of the jury against the accused. ‘(T)he
jury must necessarily conceive a prejudice against the accused,
as being in the opinion of the judge a dangerous man, and one
not to be trusted, even under the surveillance of officers.’ State
v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591, 593 (1877) Quoted in Kennedy v.
Cardwell, supra at 106. ‘It offends not only judicial dignity and
decorum, but also that respect for the individual which is the
lifeblood of the law.’ Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 350-51,
90 S.Ct. 1057, 1064, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970).
Mayhugh, 336 A.2d at 381-82.
- 21 -
J-S35021-16
We rejected Mayhugh’s claim that he had been deprived of the cloak of
innocence because 1) he was not seen physically restrained with handcuffs,
and 2) the restraint observed, if observed at all, was minimal. Thus, on its
face, Mayhugh does not directly compel reversal here, as no relief was even
granted in that case.
Nevertheless, Appellant was not restrained in this case at all: the
sheriff was only standing near him as he testified. Appellant fails to cite any
authority which suggests that the presence of a sheriff or similar security
official in the vicinity of a testifying defendant implicates that defendant’s
due process right to be cloaked in the presumption of innocence. Thus,
Appellant’s claim lacks merit.
In any event, at the beginning of Appellant’s testimony, and in
response to Appellant’s concerns, the trial court instructed the jury not to
take any adverse inference against Appellant from the presence of the
sheriff, in an effort to mitigate any potential prejudice the presence of the
sheriff might cause. N.T., 11/19/13, 143. Appellant did not object at trial
that the instruction was insufficient to remedy any potential prejudice
resulting from the sheriff’s presence, nor does he argue now why that
instruction was insufficient to cure any resulting prejudice. On this basis,
even if we were to find that the trial court erred, we would deem that error
harmless as it was adequately remedied by the trial court’s instruction.
Finally, Appellant asserts that he was illegally sentenced under 18
Pa.C.S. § 9718, as that statute violated the rule set forth in Alleyne, 133
- 22 -
J-S35021-16
S.Ct. 2151 (holding any fact that increases mandatory minimum sentence
for crime is an element of an aggravated crime, not a mere sentencing
factor of the lesser, that must be submitted to jury and proven beyond a
reasonable doubt). See Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800 (Pa.
Super. 2014), appeal granted, 121 A.3d 433 (Pa. 2015). In Wolfe, this
Court applied Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(en banc), to find 18 Pa.C.S. § 9718 unconstitutional under Alleyne. The
trial court agrees, noting that “[b]ecause Alleyne …, … Newman, and now
… Wolfe render mandatory minimum sentences pursuant to Section 9718
unconstitutional, Appellant’s sentence should be vacated and remanded.”
TCO, at 16.
We agree with Appellant and the trial court. Appellant’s IDSI sentence
was unconstitutional under the Alleyne/Newman/Wolfe line of decisions.4
Moreover, because we believe this may affect the trial court’s overall
____________________________________________
4
The Commonwealth suggests that we hold this matter pending our
Supreme Court’s consideration of the Commonwealth’s appeal in Wolfe.
See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 19-21. We are well-aware that Wolfe
presents a unique challenge to the Newman line of cases, as the
Commonwealth aptly describes in its brief. Id. Nevertheless, Wolfe is
clearly the law of this Commonwealth at the moment, and must therefore be
dutifully applied by this Court. However, nothing in our decision today
precludes the Commonwealth from seeking review in the Supreme Court of
our decision to remand based on Wolfe. Indeed, because the Supreme
Court is currently considering (or reconsidering) this Court’s decision in
Wolfe, we believe the Supreme Court is the appropriate venue in which to
seek a stay of resentencing if, indeed, the Commonwealth believes justice
requires such relief. With regard to the propriety of granting such a stay, we
express no opinion.
- 23 -
J-S35021-16
sentencing scheme, as Appellant received consecutive sentences, we vacate
Appellant’s judgment of sentence in its entirety and remand for
resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 997 A.2d 1205, 1210–
1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “if a correction by this Court may upset
the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to
remand [for resentencing]”) (internal quotations, citations, and corrections
omitted).
In sum, we conclude that all of Appellant’s trial- and pretrial-related
claims either lack merit or constitute harmless error. Thus, we do not
disturb his conviction. However, because Appellant was illegally sentenced
pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9718, we vacate his
judgment of sentence in its entirety and remand for resentencing consistent
with the Alleyne/Newman/Wolfe line of decisions.
Judgement of sentence vacated. Case remanded for resentencing.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/20/2016
- 24 -