Com. v. Bowman, R.
3793 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- On Feb. 12, 2014 the victim called 911 and reported Randall Bowman (Appellant) punched and choked her in her car; police photographed visible injuries (lacerated/swollen lip, loose tooth). Detective Silberstein took a signed statement and photos shortly after the incident.
- Bowman was charged with simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. §2701) and related offenses; case proceeded to jury trial on Sept. 23, 2015.
- At trial the victim testified to the assault; the Commonwealth introduced photographic and detective testimony corroborating injuries and the victim’s statement.
- Defense elicited alibi testimony from Bowman’s mother; defense counsel attempted to cross-examine the victim about alleged post-incident statements to Bowman’s mother that the victim wanted Bowman jailed (purported motive to fabricate).
- Trial court sustained the Commonwealth’s relevance and hearsay objections and excluded that line of cross-examination as remote, collateral, and not germane to identity of the assailant.
- Jury convicted Bowman of simple assault; Bowman appealed, arguing the exclusion prevented impeachment of the victim and warranted a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by excluding cross‑examination of the victim about post‑incident statements to Appellant’s mother expressing a desire to see Appellant jailed | Commonwealth: evidence of assault (victim testimony, photos, detective) was credible and exclusion was proper | Bowman: excluding the testimony prevented impeachment of the victim’s credibility and evidence of motive to fabricate (custody advantage) | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion was not reversible error and, even if error, was harmless given overwhelming corroborating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mullins, 665 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. 1995) (scope and limits of cross‑examination lie within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Gentile, 640 A.2d 1309 (Pa. Super. 1994) (bias/interest evidence is generally admissible to impeach credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (harmless‑error standard: an error is harmless only if court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 605 A.2d 792 (Pa. 1992) (error is harmless if it could not have contributed to the verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing harmless‑error analysis where impeachment evidence was excluded)