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

Victim (54) and Robert M. Callahan had an on‑again/off‑again three‑year relationship; they had consensual sex earlier on November 15, 2014, then a second encounter at his home that the victim later reported as nonconsensual.
Victim testified Callahan pinned her, wrapped his hands around her neck, threatened to hurt her, punched her, and forced penile penetration despite her verbal and physical resistance; medical exam documented multiple bruises and abrasions.
Investigators recorded a post‑incident phone call in which Callahan made inculpatory statements and later he was arrested; photographs of injuries to both parties were admitted at trial.
A jury convicted Callahan of rape by forcible compulsion, aggravated indecent assault by forcible compulsion, and sexual assault; he was sentenced to 3–6 years’ incarceration plus 14 years’ concurrent probation and registration as a sexual offender.
On appeal, Callahan challenged jury instructions (mens rea, consent, mistake of fact, totality), sufficiency and weight of the evidence as to forcible compulsion and mens rea, and the trial court’s replaying of his recorded statements during jury deliberations.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's/Trial Court's Argument	Held
Jury instructions (mens rea, consent, mistake of fact, totality)	Court failed to instruct properly; removed mens rea requirement; refused defenses/instruction on mistake of fact and totality	Court adequately instructed on consent and totality; mistake of fact is not a defense to forcible compulsion; wording within court’s discretion	Court did not err; instructions were adequate and not fundamentally misleading
Sufficiency of evidence for forcible compulsion (rape)	Prior consensual sex and lack of vaginal trauma negate forcible compulsion	Evidence showed physical force, choking, threats, blows, and injuries supporting forcible compulsion	Evidence sufficient to support conviction for rape by forcible compulsion
Weight of the evidence	Jury verdict against the weight given prior relationship and alleged inconsistencies in victim’s testimony	Jury credited victim; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial	Weight challenge denied; verdict not shocking to conscience
Replay of defendant’s recorded statements during deliberations	Playing the recording during deliberations violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 646 and skewed emphasis without allowing contradictory evidence	Replay in open court (not placing recording in jury room) was within trial court’s discretion; both sides argued its meaning at closing	No abuse of discretion; replay permissible and did not require reversal

Commonwealth v. Williams, 439 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. 1982) (mistake of fact is not a defense to rape)
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994) (forcible compulsion requires physical force, threat of force, or psychological coercion)
Commonwealth v. Smolko, 666 A.2d 672 (Pa. Super. 1995) (forcible compulsion assessed by totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Riley, 643 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Super. 1994) (forcible compulsion analysis)
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Miskovitch, 64 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. 2013) (jury‑instruction review standard)
Commonwealth v. Grimes, 982 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court’s discretion in phrasing instructions)
Commonwealth v. Morton, 774 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2001) (permitting review of defendant’s confession by jurors in courtroom during deliberations is distinct from sending a written confession into the jury room)
Commonwealth v. Gladden, 665 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 1995) (reading a confession in open court to jurors after deliberations began did not violate rule prohibiting copies in jury room)
Commonwealth v. Akers, 572 A.2d 746 (Pa. Super. 1990) (trial court discretion over exhibits jurors may take into deliberation)