Com. v. Gardner, V.
201 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Victim Carla Taylor testified (with immunity) that on Oct. 16, 2013, Gardner prevented her from leaving, forced her to remove her clothes, and had nonconsensual sex; police arrived and arrested Gardner.
- Taylor gave a written statement after the arrest, then later wrote a second letter absolving Gardner and testified falsely at the preliminary hearing at his direction. She later recanted that falsehood at trial.
- While incarcerated, Gardner called Taylor repeatedly, pressured her to change her story, and threatened her (“going to have something done to me”), with multiple recorded jail calls played at trial by both sides. The recordings were not transcribed.
- Gardner was charged with witness intimidation (and other joined sexual-offense charges); a jury convicted him of witness intimidation and acquitted on the other counts. He was sentenced to 5–10 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Gardner challenged: sufficiency of the evidence; limits on cross-examining Taylor about probation/CYF; refusal to give a "false in one, false in all" jury instruction; and the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Gardner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for witness intimidation | Taylor’s testimony and the jail calls supported conviction for intimidating her to give false testimony | Recordings do not show intimidation; Taylor was an unreliable, vindictive liar and only later claimed intimidation | Affirmed — Taylor’s testimony alone (and reasonable inferences from calls) was sufficient to prove intimidation and coercion to give false testimony |
| Limitation on cross-exam re: probation/CYF involvement | Objection: questions about other drinking incidents not relevant | Gardner: probative impeachment evidence of bias/interest (probation/CYF) was improperly curtailed | Waived — defense did not press impeachment theory at trial when objection was made; claim waived on appeal |
| Refusal to give "false in one, false in all" instruction | Requested specific instruction due to Taylor’s inconsistent statements | Court refused but gave standard credibility instructions | No reversible error — when full credibility instructions are given, refusing the specific "falsus in uno" charge is not an abuse of discretion |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (5–10 years) | Court properly considered PSR, offense gravity, and defendant’s extensive criminal history | Gardner argued court relied on an unproven/unsourced threatening statement and overemphasized offense gravity | Affirmed — claim waived as to PSR statement (no specific objection), PSR creates presumption court considered relevant factors, sentence within guideline range and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Doughty, 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015) (prior threatening behavior may inform witness-intimidation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Vicens-Rodriguez, 911 A.2d 116 (Pa. Super. 2006) (no error in refusing specific "false in one, false in all" charge when full credibility instruction given)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSR informs sentencing court and creates presumption that court considered relevant factors)