182 A.3d 460
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Michael Wade Giles was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual offenses involving a 10‑year‑old victim (rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of children, and indecent exposure).
- The alleged abuses occurred in spring–summer 2014 (victim was in fifth grade); victim testified to three incidents including intercourse and oral sex.
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced (over defense hearsay objection) a March 11, 2015 forensic interview video of the victim and testimony from the victim’s grandmother recounting an emergency‑room police interview.
- Defense cross‑examination impeached the victim on timing and completeness of earlier statements, including noting omissions in the forensic interview and preliminary hearing testimony.
- Trial court admitted the forensic interview and grandmother’s testimony as prior consistent statements under Pa.R.E. 613(c) to rehabilitate the victim after impeachment; Giles received an aggregate sentence of 215–430 months and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview as prior consistent statement | Commonwealth: interview rehabilitates victim’s credibility after cross‑examination suggested faulty memory/fabrication | Giles: video is hearsay and not a proper prior consistent statement because it didn’t predate the alleged impeachment or didn’t contain the same details | Court: admissible under Pa.R.E. 613(c) to rebut implied charge of faulty memory/fabrication; no abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of grandmother’s testimony about ER police interview as prior consistent statement | Commonwealth: grandmother’s account corroborates victim’s in‑court testimony and rebuts suggested motive/fabrication | Giles: testimony is hearsay and improper because it repeats out‑of‑court statements | Court: admissible under Pa.R.E. 613(c) to rehabilitate victim after cross‑examination alleging fabrication/improper motive; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chmiel v. Commonwealth, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999) (standard for review of evidentiary admissibility and abuse of discretion)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (defining abuse of discretion standard)
- Hunzer v. Commonwealth, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prior consistent statements of child sexual‑assault victims may be admissible to corroborate testimony)
- Willis v. Commonwealth, 552 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1988) (child’s prior consistent statements admissible to rebut impeachment and memory‑decay in abuse cases)