Com. v. Callahan, R., Com. v. Callahan, R. No. 629 EDA 2016

Victim is 54, employed at a Wawa in Montgomery County; appellant and victim had a roughly three-year on/off dating relationship with a rocky dynamic.
On Nov. 15, 2014, victim finished work early and agreed to meet appellant at his home; they engaged in consensual sex initially.
Afterwards, appellant forced intercourse, restraining the victim by pinning her to the bed and grabbing her neck; he punched her in the face; the victim screamed and fought.
Victim sustained multiple injuries; she reported the assault, and photographs of injuries were admitted at trial.
Investigators obtained consent to record a telephone conversation, during which appellant made incriminating statements; appellant later gave a conflicted account in a police statement.
Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of rape by forcible compulsion, aggravated indecent assault by forcible compulsion, and sexual assault, and was sentenced to 3–6 years' imprisonment with 14 years' probation and Megan’s Law registration; various post-trial motions and a Rule 1925 statement followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions properly covered mens rea, consent, mistake of fact, credibility, and totality of circumstances.	Callahan contends the court erred by omitting essential mens rea and defense instructions.	Commonwealth argues instructions were adequate; mistake of fact not a defense to forcible compulsion; consent properly defined.	No reversible error; instructions adequate and properly framed.
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove forcible compulsion and lack of consent.	Callahan asserts insufficient proof of forcible compulsion.	Commonwealth shows victim restrained, neck-grabbed, punched, and screamed consent withdrawn.	Sufficient evidence supported forcible compulsion.
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence.	Callahan challenges credibility and prior consensual history as undermining the verdict.	Jury credibility determinations binding; no weight reversal warranted.	Not against the weight of the evidence.
Whether the recording played during deliberations was improperly admitted or prejudicial.	Waiver due to no objection; recording prejudicial.	Failure to object waived issue; no undue prejudice established.	Issue waived on appeal; not a basis to overturn.

Commonwealth v. Miskovitch, 64 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. 2013) (jury instructions must be adequate and not misleading if clear sound legal principles)
Commonwealth v. Pope, 14 A.3d 139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (court may use its own wording in instructions; not required to read standard instructions verbatim)
Commonwealth v. Grimes, 982 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 2009) (adequacy of jury instructions; whether the charge misled the jury)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 439 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. 1982) (mistake of fact not a defense to rape)
Commonwealth v. Farmer, 758 A.2d 173 (Pa. Super. 2000) (applies Williams to ineffective assistance of counsel context)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 638 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1994) (rape-shield considerations; prior consent not blanket consent)
Commonwealth v. Smolko, 666 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. 1995) (forcible compulsion analysis balanced on totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Riley, 643 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Super. 1994) (physical force elements for forcible compulsion)
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994) (lack of consent with no physical or coercive force may negate forcible compulsion)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight of the evidence review is for the trial court’s discretion)