Com. v. Howard, S., Com. v. Howard, S. No. 769 WDA 2016

Background

Shaun Michael Howard was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses for assaults on his then-11-year-old daughter and sentenced to an aggregate 45 to 104 years.
The victim disclosed the abuse to her mother on August 10, 2014; she was removed from the home and, three days later, told other relatives more details.
The victim was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), Cheryl Wier, in the emergency room; no police were present and the nurse described the exam as for medical evaluation/treatment.
The trial court admitted (1) the victim’s statements to the SANE nurse under the Tender Years hearsay exception and (2) a June 2015 letter the victim wrote to her aunt, also under the Tender Years exception.
The parties stipulated that the victim was unavailable to testify at trial; Howard did not argue he had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim.
Howard appealed, arguing both the SANE statements and the letter were testimonial (thus barred by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause) or, alternatively, not sufficiently reliable under the Tender Years exception.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Howard)	Held
Admissibility of victim’s statements to SANE nurse under Confrontation Clause	Statements were non-testimonial because the SANE exam was a medical, not forensic, inquiry performed during a present child-safety emergency	Statements were testimonial because the exam primarily gathered evidence and occurred after disclosure (three days later), triggering Crawford protection	Court held statements non-testimonial: exam was for medical treatment amid a perceived ongoing emergency; Confrontation Clause not violated
Admissibility of victim’s statements to SANE nurse under Tender Years exception	Statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability (spontaneity, consistency, child’s mental state, lack of motive to fabricate) and thus admissible	Statements unreliable: victim reluctant, often nonverbal, questioned repeatedly by relatives before details emerged	Court held statements sufficiently reliable; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting them
Admissibility of victim’s June 2015 letter under Confrontation Clause	Letter was written to aunt to encourage disclosure, not primarily to create evidence; thus non-testimonial	Letter was testimonial because it was known it might be given to police and it produced detailed descriptions unlike earlier statements	Court held letter non-testimonial: primary purpose was to get the child to open up to a family member, not to create a formal record for prosecution
Admissibility of the letter under the Tender Years exception	Letter reliable: voluntary, consistent with prior statements, appropriate language for the child’s age, and not the product of improper coaching by aunt	Letter unreliable: more explicit than earlier statements, aunt may have influenced drafting	Court held the letter reliable and admissible under the Tender Years exception

Key Cases Cited

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (recognizing Confrontation Clause applies to states)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay barred unless available for cross-examination)
Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (factors for indicia of reliability for child statements)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (statements to non-law-enforcement less likely to be testimonial; context matters)
Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 36 A.3d 163 (Pa. standard for determining primary purpose/testimonial status)
In re N.C., 105 A.3d 1199 (Pa. discussion reconciling Crawford with tender-years reliability review)
Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pennsylvania factors identifying indicia of reliability for child statements)
Commonwealth v. Yohe, 39 A.3d 381 (standard of review for Confrontation Clause claims in Pa.)
Commonwealth v. Lukowich, 875 A.3d 1169 (purpose of Tender Years exception and fragility of young victims)
Commonwealth v. O’Drain, 829 A.2d 316 (Tender Years reliability requires time, content, and circumstances analysis)