Com. v. Hartman, W.
Com. v. Hartman, W. No. 156 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- William F. Hartman was convicted after a two-day jury trial of four counts of possession of child pornography (18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d)) and one count of criminal use of a communication facility (18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a)) based on five images recovered from a computer seized during a parole compliance check. He had a prior, related conviction for possession of child pornography.
- Forensics identified five images depicting minors; a pediatric expert testified all five were under 18. Investigators also found extensive web-history hits (including ~400 hits for “preteen”/“pre teen” and visited sites with names suggesting teen content).
- Pretrial motions: the court denied the Commonwealth’s 404(b) motion but reserved the right to admit prior-conviction evidence if Hartman “opened the door”; the court admitted a fifth image (not charged) as relevant to intent.
- At trial the defense argued (inter alia) that only a few images out of thousands were implicated, that others could have accessed the computer, that chain-of-custody and forensic reports were inconsistent, and objected to certain prosecutor comments and admission of the prior conviction.
- Sentencing: court imposed mandatory minimums under the recidivist statute (42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2) — 25 to 50 years on each child-pornography count (concurrent) plus 12–24 months consecutive on the communication-facility count — based on the prior conviction; Hartman appealed raising weight-of-the-evidence, evidentiary errors, and illegality/excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Hartman: only 4 (or 5) images among thousands; images were "questionable/gray area"; others could have accessed the PC; forensic reports inconsistent; chain-of-custody gaps | Jury and trial court: expert and forensic testimony established the five images depicted minors, web-history and visited-site evidence tied to the machine, custody was maintained; credibility/weight for jury | Verdict not against weight; trial court did not abuse discretion — convictions affirmed |
| Admissibility of a fifth (uncharged) image and other evidence (search history, prior conviction, "unsavory" sites) | Hartman: fifth image was uncharged and prejudicial; search-history and site references were irrelevant unless linked to the images; prior conviction admission was improper; prosecutor made improper comments | Commonwealth/trial court: fifth image probative of intent (statute covers sexual acts or lewd exhibition); field-search report and forensic evidence were admissible; prior conviction was allowed only after defendant opened the door and for rebuttal; prosecutor's remarks were fair comment/rebuttal | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the fifth image, search-history, or using prior conviction for impeachment when door opened; prosecutor's comments not reversible error |
| Chain of custody and forensic procedure challenges | Hartman: gaps in logging, delay between seizure and warrant, lack of original device at trial, possible tampering | Commonwealth: witnesses established custody steps (probation → CID → secured evidence → forensic exam) and that gaps go to weight not admissibility | Chain-of-custody was sufficient for admissibility; any gaps affected weight (jury), not admissibility; no reversible error |
| Legality and excessiveness of mandatory minimum sentence under Alleyne | Hartman: mandatory 25-year minimum (recidivist statute) increased sentence based on facts not found by jury; alleged lack of notice; sentence disproportionate | Commonwealth/trial court: prior-conviction fact is an established Almendarez-Torres exception preserved by Alleyne (Alleyne noted the prior-conviction exception); Commonwealth presented stipulation/evidence of prior conviction; discretionary consecutive/aggregate sentencing within court’s authority | Mandatory minimum based on prior conviction is not illegal under Alleyne; sentencing challenge fails; consecutive term was within sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Diggs v. Commonwealth, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (appellate discussion of factfinder credibility and weight-of-evidence review)
- Rivera v. Commonwealth, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence standard: new trial warranted only when verdict shocks the conscience)
- Ratushny v. Commonwealth, 17 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate review limited to whether trial court properly exercised discretion on weight claims)
- Trinidad v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion test)
- Ross v. Commonwealth, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Rule 404(b) guiding purposes for admission of other-acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (presumption jury follows limiting instructions; prosecutor may respond to defense arguments)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements generally, but the prior-conviction exception in Almendarez-Torres survives)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (narrow exception permitting fact of prior conviction to be adjudicated outside jury factfinding)
- Leatherby v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedural preservation and four-part test for discretionary-sentencing challenges)