Com. v. Dukes, L.
1951 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Lerin Dukes was charged after an incident on Feb 23, 2016; following a non-jury trial he was convicted of sexual assault (18 Pa.C.S. §3124.1) and simple assault and sentenced to about 1–2 years’ imprisonment. Post-sentence motions were denied and Dukes appealed.
- Victim (his wife) testified that Dukes entered her home in violation of a no-contact order, pushed her up stairs, led her to a bedroom, removed her clothes, and had intercourse despite her unwillingness; she also testified she scratched and bit him and later called 911. At trial the victim partially recanted earlier testimony but the court found her recantation not credible.
- Dukes moved for acquittal arguing the victim’s in-court statements undermined proof of nonconsent; a sidebar included the trial court remark that non-consent need not be verbal to support conviction.
- The Commonwealth introduced evidence of multiple prior assaultive incidents by Dukes against the victim (PFA history and specific prior abuses) and notified under Pa.R.E. 404(b); the trial court admitted this evidence for limited purposes (history, intent/malice, absence of mistake, and to show atmosphere of fear).
- Dukes appealed raising (1) that §3124.1 was wrongly applied as requiring no mens rea for non-consent (arguing recklessness should be required), and (2) that admission of prior-acts evidence violated Rule 404(b) and was unduly prejudicial.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not treat non-consent as an absolute-liability element, credited prior testimony and conduct to infer at least recklessness as to non-consent, and did not abuse discretion admitting prior-abuse evidence (especially in a bench trial).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction under §3124.1 may rest on intercourse without proof Duke knew victim did not consent (mens rea for non-consent) | Statute lacks mens rea language; default culpability under 18 Pa.C.S. §302(c) is recklessness, so Commonwealth must prove Duke knew or recklessly disregarded non-consent | Trial court credited prior statements and circumstances (force, being pushed upstairs, scratches/biting) showing non-consent communicated or reasonably inferable, satisfying culpable mental state | Court affirmed: trial court did not treat non-consent as absolute liability; facts permit inference of at least recklessness regarding non-consent and support conviction |
| Whether trial court erred admitting evidence of prior assaultive acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Prior-acts evidence was used improperly to show propensity and was unduly prejudicial | Evidence was admissible to show history of relationship, motive/ill will, absence of mistake, and atmosphere of fear; trial court limited purpose and bench setting reduced prejudice | Court affirmed: admission was within trial court discretion under 404(b) and res gestae/history exceptions; probative value outweighed prejudice, especially in bench trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 874 A.2d 623 (Pa. 2005) (§302(c) default mental state jurisprudence)
- Joshi v. Nair, 614 A.2d 722 (Pa. Super. 1992) (procedural briefing deficiencies may be excused when review unaffected)
- Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (prior abuse admissible to show history and natural development of events)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 900 A.2d 936 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prior incidents admissible to show nature of relationship, motive, and lack of consent)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (prior acts admissible to show ill will, motive, or malice)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (prior bad acts demonstrate chain or sequence forming case history and show intent/malice)
- Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2017) (admissibility of evidence is discretionary; prior family/relationship evidence can be relevant to full story)
- Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (bench trials reduce risk of undue prejudice from prior-act evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (prior bad acts probative to establish family environment, intent, and malice)
- Commonwealth v. Barger, 743 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 1999) (prior abusive behavior admissible to prove lack of consent)