Com. v. DePaoli, P.
1720 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 14, 2016Background
- Paul DePaoli was tried jointly for sexual offenses involving two girls (M.K. and R.D.); a jury convicted him of multiple offenses including rape of a child and IDSI.
- M.K. (under 12) made out-of-court statements to her mother and therapist; those statements were the subject of a pre-trial Tender Years Hearsay Act (TYHA) hearing.
- The trial court found M.K. competent, admitted her TYHA statements, and allowed her to testify via closed-circuit television.
- After conviction, the court held an SVP hearing; a SOAB evaluator diagnosed DePaoli with Pedophilic Disorder and the court designated him a Sexually Violent Predator.
- DePaoli was sentenced to an aggregate 23 1/4 to 48 years (consecutive sentences) and ordered to register under SORNA; he filed post-sentence motions and appealed.
- The Superior Court remanded for the trial court to issue an amended Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion addressing four issues from the Rule 1925(b) statement that had not been discussed initially.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (DePaoli) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of M.K.’s out-of-court statements under the TYHA | Statements were timely, relevant, reliable, spontaneous/therapeutic — admissible and non‑testimonial | Statements violated TYHA / Confrontation Clause because M.K. allegedly could not meaningfully testify | Admitted: TYHA criteria met; statements were non‑testimonial (or, if testimonial, M.K. testified and was cross‑examined) |
| Competency and quality of M.K.’s trial testimony (and closed‑circuit testimony) | Court observed competency; closed‑circuit permissible to avoid trauma and preserve reliability | M.K. allegedly not able to provide constitutionally sufficient testimony; closed‑circuit violated confrontation rights | Competency finding upheld; closed‑circuit testimony permitted under Maryland v. Craig and §5985 because testimony would be impaired by in‑person presence of defendant |
| SVP designation | SOAB report and expert testimony (Dr. Muscari) show pedophilic disorder and predatory behavior; clear and convincing proof | SVP designation erroneous | SVP designation affirmed: expert testimony and statutory factors support finding by clear and convincing evidence |
| Jury instruction on voluntariness/actus reus (shower incident) and weight/sentencing arguments | Court correctly instructed on statutory elements; TYHA and trial evidence ample; sentence within guideline range | Jury should have been instructed on mens rea/voluntariness re: alleged accidental contact; verdict against weight; sentence exceeded mandatory minimum | Instructions adequate (court not required to adopt defense wording); weight claim waived/meritless; sentencing within discretion and explained on record (challenge fails) |
Key Cases Cited
- DeJesus v. Commonwealth, 868 A.2d 379 (Pa. 2005) (trial court must address issues in Rule 1925 opinion; remand appropriate for inadequate opinion)
- Delbridge v. Commonwealth, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (standards for admitting child hearsay and indicators of reliability)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements for Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (face‑to‑face confrontation not absolute; closed‑circuit testimony permissible when necessary to protect child and reliability is assured)
- In re N.C., 105 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2014) (narrow holding that extremely unresponsive child who provides no testimony may render TYHA hearsay inadmissible under Crawford)
- Allhouse v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 163 (Pa. 2012) (analysis for determining whether statements are testimonial and Confrontation Clause implications)