Com. v. Cooper, D.
Com. v. Cooper, D. No. 483 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Victim and Devin Cooper had a two-year romantic relationship and a child together; relationship included prior incidents of domestic violence.
- On May 27, 2015 Cooper forced entry into the victim’s apartment (he was not on the lease or keyed), grabbed and restrained her, covered her mouth and nose, pushed her face down and sat on her back, and later had sexual intercourse with her over her objections.
- Victim suffered visible bruises and soreness and submitted to a hospital sexual-assault exam; she made a written police report and a recorded phone call from the station led to Cooper’s arrest.
- Commonwealth charged Cooper with multiple offenses; jury acquitted on rape, burglary, and terroristic threats but convicted on sexual assault, criminal trespass, false imprisonment, and simple assault.
- Cooper moved in limine to exclude victim’s brief testimony about two prior assaults during the relationship; trial court denied the motion. Cooper appealed, raising admissibility of prior-bad-acts evidence and sufficiency claims.
- Superior Court affirmed: ruled prior-bad-acts testimony admissible (probative of victim’s fear and behavior and not unduly prejudicial) and found Cooper waived specific insufficiency claims by an inadequate Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; court also explained sufficiency would fail on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s testimony about prior assaults | Commonwealth: prior incidents explain victim’s fear, refusal to admit Cooper, and why she behaved as she did; admissible under Rule 404(b) | Cooper: testimony was impermissible propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Admitted — probative to explain victim’s fear/conduct; brief testimony not unduly prejudicial; denial of motion in limine not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual assault | Commonwealth: victim’s testimony, physical injuries, and circumstances established nonconsensual intercourse | Cooper: sex was consensual; evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Waived for inadequate Rule 1925(b) statement; alternatively, evidence was sufficient if considered (victim’s testimony and injuries support conviction) |
| Sufficiency for simple assault | Commonwealth: physical restraint, choking, bruises show bodily injury/attempt to cause injury | Cooper: contested account; victim’s testimony unreliable | Waived; alternatively sufficient (testimony of choking, soreness, bruises supports simple assault) |
| Sufficiency for false imprisonment and criminal trespass | Commonwealth: forced entry, unlawful restraint, interference with liberty | Cooper: disputed facts, consent, and presence in apartment | Waived; alternatively sufficient (forced entry + restraint support trespass and false imprisonment convictions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Schley, 136 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and harmless error)
- Commonwealth v. Broaster, 863 A.2d 588 (Pa. Super. 2004) (relevant but prejudicial evidence analysis; prior unpleasant facts may be admitted if part of events’ history)
- Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior domestic violence between parties generally admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 900 A.2d 936 (Pa. Super. 2006) (history of prior domestic violence admissible to show sequence, motive, intent)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (harmless-error standard: error harmless only if it could not have contributed to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement for sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Benito, 133 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. 2016) (forced entry by nonlessee supports criminal trespass conviction)
- In the Interest of M.G., 916 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (false imprisonment covers substantial interference with liberty)
- Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pinning and choking sufficient for simple assault conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Castelhun, 889 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2005) (uncorroborated victim testimony can support sexual-offense convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 650 A.2d 452 (Pa. Super. 1994) (victim’s testimony, if believed, sufficient to convict)
- Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard and review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (de minimis prejudice can render error harmless)
- Commonwealth v. W.H.M., Jr., 932 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2007) (credibility disputes are weight, not sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review does not assess credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (credibility determinations are for the fact-finder)