Com. v. Hart, W., 381 EDA 2016

Victim (M.M.), age ~40, moved in with her father, Willie Hart, in 2013 after leaving her husband; she testified that he raped her multiple times (about six occasions) from March to October 2013.
On October 11, 2013, an altercation led to police being called; officers observed the victim injured, trembling, and fearful; she disclosed the ongoing rapes to police and others.
Hart was arrested and charged with rape by forcible compulsion, sexual assault, incest, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and simple assault.
After a bifurcated, waiver (bench) trial, the court convicted Hart on all counts; he was later assessed as a Sexually Violent Predator and sentenced to 30–60 years’ imprisonment on January 8, 2016.
Hart appealed asserting (inter alia) insufficiency and weight challenges to the rape conviction, improper admission of a "prompt complaint" witness, that his jury-waiver was induced by a promise no mandatories would be sought, and that a mandatory minimum sentence was wrongly imposed.
The Superior Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing because the Commonwealth sought a mandatory minimum despite assurances at the waiver colloquy that no mandatories would be pursued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Hart)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for rape by forcible compulsion	Evidence (victim testimony, officer observations, disclosures) was sufficient to prove forcible compulsion	No evidence of forcible compulsion; only lack of consent shown	Conviction upheld — totality of circumstances showed forcible compulsion (physical and psychological coercion)
Weight of the evidence	Trial court's credibility findings credible; delay did not prejudice defendant	Victim incoherent, inconsistencies, nine-month delay between testimony and verdict rendered verdict against weight	Weight claim denied — verdict did not shock conscience; trial judge reasonably credited victim
Admission of prompt-complaint testimony (John Fisher)	Testimony admissible under Rule 613(c) where demeanor and content showed a prompt complaint	Fisher couldn’t specify timing; testimony thus unreliable and hearsay	Admission upheld — surrounding circumstances supported promptness and corroboration
Mandatory minimum sentence after jury waiver	Commonwealth argued sentencing valid	Hart argued waiver bargain promised no mandatories, so mandatory minimum breached and waiver not voluntary	Sentence vacated and remanded — court and Commonwealth agreed mandatory was imposed in violation of waiver agreement; resentencing required

Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 510 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1986) (forcible compulsion includes moral, psychological, intellectual force)
Commonwealth v. Eckrote, 12 A.3d 383 (Pa. Super. 2010) (forcible compulsion explained)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (psychological coercion can establish rape)
Commonwealth v. Ables, 590 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1991) (force defined by effect on victim’s volition)
Commonwealth v. Bryson, 860 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 613 and admission of prompt complaint evidence in sexual assault cases)
Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (interpreting plea/waiver agreements and reasonable expectations of parties)