Com. v. J.G.M., Com. v. J.G.M. No. 1822 EDA 2016

Appellant J.G.M. (stepfather) was tried for multiple sexual offenses against his 12-year-old stepdaughter based on three incidents in April–May 2014; victim testified he punished her for using electronic devices by forcing sexual acts.
Victim disclosed to a friend, then to a social worker; a recorded forensic interview was played for the jury.
Paper towels recovered from a guest-bedroom trash can tested positive for spermatozoa and DNA matched Appellant; one towel was indicative of saliva.
Defense elicited inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, contested pornography claims (no porn found on Appellant’s iPad), and offered alternative expert testimony; Appellant testified and denied the offenses.
Trial court excluded specific pornographic-site content and certain mental-health details of the victim; sustained an objection to a Commonwealth question implying Appellant’s post-arrest silence and denied a mistrial after curative instructions.
Jury convicted Appellant of IDSI with a child, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and corruption of minors; on appeal, Appellant challenged weight of the evidence, denial of mistrial, and the exclusion of evidence about the victim’s pornography viewing and a short fictional story she wrote.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Victim’s accounts conflicted, iPad had no porn, DNA/towel evidence undermined her story	Victim’s testimony consistent on core facts; DNA corroborated victim; conflicting minor details insufficient	Denied — weight claim rejected; jury credibility choice upheld
Whether a mistrial was required for Commonwealth’s implied use of Appellant’s silence	Questioning implied guilt via failure to contact detective prejudiced jury	Court sustained objection, gave immediate curative instruction, offered additional instruction which defense declined	Denied — fleeting reference cured by instruction; no prejudice shown
Admissibility of details of pornographic websites viewed by victim	Details relevant to motive/credibility; Rape Shield not controlling	Trial court: prosecution must lay foundation/authenticate specific content and dates; defendant failed to do so	Denied — specific site content excluded for lack of foundation and limited probative value; victim’s general porn viewing admitted
Admissibility of victim’s fictional short story (impeachment)	Story showed motive/propensity to fabricate; directly impeached victim	Court excluded therapy statements and story details; defense failed to preserve or lay foundation in record	Waived/Denied — issue not preserved in certified record; no review on merits

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court cannot consider weight claim in first instance)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for weight-of-evidence review and deference to factfinder)
Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (trial court’s denial of new trial on weight claim is least assailable)
Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606 (Pa. Super. 2016) (mistrial standards and abuse-of-discretion review)
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (cautionary jury instructions can cure fleeting prejudicial remarks)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (harmless-error rule when evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
Lamp v. Pa. R.R. Co., 158 A. 269 (Pa. 1931) (incontrovertible physical facts rule)