Com. v. Geier, E., Jr.
Com. v. Geier, E., Jr. No. 881 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Appellant Edward A. Geier, Jr. was tried and convicted after a jury found he committed extensive sexual offenses against two victims: his stepdaughter K.K.M. (born 2001) and half-sister A.H. (born 1988).
- K.K.M. reported abuse beginning around age 7–8 and continuing for years; she ran away at 13 and reported the abuse to state troopers. Her testimony described repeated forcible touching, oral sex, and intercourse; forensic testing identified Appellant’s semen consistent with her account.
- A.H. disclosed abuse after attending Appellant’s preliminary hearing; she testified to an incident at age 14 where she awoke with Appellant having intercourse with her, and a later incident of unwanted touching at age 19.
- The informations were consolidated; Appellant was convicted of 1,073 counts (1,068 related to K.K.M. and several related to A.H.).
- Sentencing: aggregate 75 to 150 years imprisonment (consecutive and concurrent terms across counts). Appellant timely appealed, raising only a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge in a Rule 1925(b) statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Commonwealth argued evidence (victim testimony, forensic corroboration) proved elements of charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt | Appellant argued evidence was insufficient to support convictions on all counts (generally challenged Commonwealth’s proof; alleged lack of resistance by A.H.) | Waived — Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague and failed to specify which elements or which counts were challenged; appellate court refused to review merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Commonwealth, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explains Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement)
- Lord v. Commonwealth, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925 framed as crucial to appellate process)
- In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 2000) (vague concise statements impede court’s analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (concise statement too vague is equivalent to none)
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (to preserve sufficiency claim, 1925(b) must specify elements challenged)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (importance of specificity in sufficiency challenges involving multiple offenses)