Com. v. Dukulah, S.
Com. v. Dukulah, S. No. 1955 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Appellant Sumo Dukulah was tried and convicted by a Philadelphia jury for multiple sexual offenses involving his niece K.D., alleging abuse from age ~10 to 16.
- Defense emphasized lack of physical injuries and that K.D.’s hymen was intact during opening; lab found sperm and K.D. had told others she previously had consensual sex with a peer.
- Commonwealth called Dr. Laura K. Brennan (child sexual-abuse expert) after opening statements to explain that an intact hymen does not preclude penetration; defense objected as ambush and for late disclosure.
- K.D. later executed a handwritten recantation letter; hearings revealed family pressure and coaching; trial court denied appellant’s extraordinary-relief motion after finding the recantation unreliable.
- Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 31 to 63 years (consecutive and concurrent terms) and appealed, raising sufficiency, weight, expert-admission, and discretionary-sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | K.D.’s testimony was inconsistent; lack of physical evidence and incomplete investigation rendered evidence insufficient | K.D.’s testimony alone (and corroborating witnesses) supports convictions; claim was not specific in Rule 1925(b) | Waived for lack of specificity; alternatively, evidence (victim testimony) was sufficient and convictions affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdicts shocking given inconsistencies, recantation, and lack of corroboration | Inconsistencies were minor; recantation was coached; other witnesses corroborated K.D.’s disclosures | Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdicts not against weight of evidence |
| Admission of expert (Dr. Brennan) | Testimony was trial-by-ambush, not timely disclosed, and lacked foundation | Defense opened the door by stressing intact hymen; expert admissible to correct misleading impression | Trial court properly admitted expert testimony; defendant opened the door; no abuse of discretion |
| Discretionary sentencing | Sentence excessive, improperly consecutive, court failed to consider defendant’s circumstances and rehabilitation | Court considered guidelines, PSI, mental health eval, seriousness, and lack of remorse; individualized sentence | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review and view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can support rape conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement for sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Garang, 9 A.3d 237 (Pa. Super. 2010) (applying Gibbs on preservation of sufficiency issues)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review limited to trial court’s exercise of discretion on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion to admit expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 1034 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factfinder may accept or reject expert opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2013) (litigant may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2006) (case-by-case substantial-question analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 33 A.3d 638 (Pa. Super. 2011) (manifestly excessive sentence raises substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599 (Pa. Super. 2005) (failure to consider mitigating factors can raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sentencing court must consider mitigating factors; claim can raise substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant information)