Com. v. Beck, M.
1668 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Victim (17) visited family friend’s house; defendant Michael Beck (friend’s father) hugged and then fondled the victim’s genitals through his jeans; victim left and reported the incident.
- Beck was charged with corruption of minors and indecent assault (other charges withdrawn); convicted by jury and sentenced to 6–23½ months’ imprisonment plus probation. Direct appeal affirmed.
- Beck filed a PCRA petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call character witnesses on four traits: truthfulness, appropriateness around children, peacefulness, and self-control.
- PCRA court held hearings, denied relief, and Beck appealed the denial to the Superior Court.
- Superior Court reviewed admissibility rules for character evidence (Pa.R.E. 404/405/608) and the three-prong ineffective-assistance test (arguable merit, no reasonable basis, prejudice).
- Court affirmed dismissal, finding the proposed character evidence was largely inadmissible or not pertinent, so the ineffectiveness claims lacked arguable merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for not calling witnesses to attest to Beck’s reputation for truthfulness | Beck: Commonwealth’s cross and closing attacked his credibility generally, so witnesses to his truthfulness should have been allowed under Pa.R.E. 608 | Commonwealth: Truthfulness was not pertinent to the charged offenses and the prosecution did not attack Beck’s general reputation for veracity | Held: No relief — truthfulness was not "pertinent" to indecent assault/corruption and the prosecution did not assail general reputation for truthfulness, so Rule 608 did not authorize such testimony |
| 2. Trial counsel ineffective for not calling witnesses about Beck’s appropriateness around children | Beck: Reputation evidence would rebut allegation of improper behavior with minors | Commonwealth: Proposed testimony consisted of inadmissible specific acts/opinion, not community reputation | Held: No relief — proposed testimony was inadmissible (specific incidents/opinion), so claim lacked arguable merit |
| 3. Trial counsel ineffective for not calling witnesses to attest to Beck’s peacefulness (non-violent reputation) | Beck: Evidence of non-violence would counter any inference of force or violence | Commonwealth: Charges involved inappropriate touching, not a violent offense; non-violent reputation was irrelevant | Held: No relief — crimes were not violent and peacefulness reputation was irrelevant under Pa.R.E. 402 |
| 4. Trial counsel ineffective for not calling witnesses to attest to Beck’s self-control | Beck: Reputation for self-control would rebut propensity to commit the alleged acts | Commonwealth: Proposed testimony again amounted to opinion or specific incidents rather than community reputation | Held: No relief — testimony would have been inadmissible character evidence, so claim lacked arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 830 A.2d 567 (Pa. 2003) (discusses limited circumstances in which defendant can present reputation-for-truthfulness evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2016) (explains when truthfulness is pertinent and interplay of Rules 404 and 608)
- Commonwealth v. Wantz, 84 A.3d 324 (Pa. Super. 2014) (lists elements to prove prejudice from failure to call a witness)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (presumption of counsel effectiveness; standard for PCRA ineffectiveness claims)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 153 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2016) (clarifies showing needed that alternative strategy offered substantially greater potential for success)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 785 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2001) (recognizes admissibility of reputation-for-nonviolence in violent-crime cases)
- Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2010) (defines "pertinent" character trait for Rule 404 purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses limits on character evidence and pertinence for sexual/child-related charges)