316 A.3d 1020
Pa. Super. Ct.2024Background
- Joshua Robert Copenhaver was convicted and sentenced to 15-30 years for sexual offenses against his two daughters, K.G. and C.C.
- The offenses included rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, production of child pornography, and related charges occurring between 2019 and 2021.
- The appeal challenged the admission of out-of-court statements under Pennsylvania’s "tender years" hearsay exception, focusing on K.G.’s recounting of statements made to her by C.C.
- The original appeal was partially remanded to address whether these statements were properly admitted as exceptions to hearsay.
- At trial, both victims testified, their child advocacy interviews were played for the jury, and other untainted, corroborating evidence was introduced.
- The appellate court found an abuse of discretion in admitting certain layered hearsay statements but ultimately identified the error as harmless given the weight of other evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission under "tender years" hearsay exception | K.G.'s statements about C.C. were double hearsay and unreliable, thus inadmissible under Section 5985.1. | The statements were admissible under the "tender years" exception, as K.G. was a child witness. | Court abused discretion by admitting statements but found the error harmless due to cumulative and overwhelming evidence. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | (Prior withdrawn/frivolous issue) | (Prior withdrawn/frivolous issue) | Already found to be frivolous / not at issue on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (standard for withdrawal of counsel under Anders)
- Commonwealth v. Bond, 190 A.3d 664 (Pa. Super. 2018) (statements admitted under Section 5985.1 are substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Curley, 910 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard under tender years exception)
- Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2001) (all layers of hearsay must be separately admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Savage, 157 A.3d 519 (Pa. Super. 2017) (double hearsay requires both levels satisfy exception)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 286 A.3d 1288 (Pa. Super. 2022) (harmless error doctrine for review of evidentiary errors)