Com. v. Jackson, R., Jr.
1027 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Victim (J.W.) ended a romantic relationship with Robert Jackson in Sept. 2014; Jackson persisted in contact and appeared uninvited at her home multiple times.
- On Oct. 31, 2014 Jackson forced entry with a handgun, threatened to kill the victim, struck her, forced her into the bedroom, compelled oral sex and vaginal intercourse at gunpoint, and then left after making the victim read journal entries from his device.
- Victim suffered facial bruising; a rape kit produced a DNA match to Jackson; police recovered Jackson’s coat at the scene, an iPad diary linking him to entries forced to be read, and a Glock-style handgun with laser sight.
- Under police supervision the victim placed recorded phone calls to Jackson the next day; those calls were played at trial.
- Jackson was convicted by jury of multiple offenses (including rape, IDSI, burglary, sexual assault, aggravated assault – causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon, possession of firearm by person prohibited, unlawful restraint, terroristic threats, trespass, simple assault) and sentenced to an aggregate 20.5–43 years.
- On appeal Jackson challenged (1) admission of the recorded calls and his diary; (2) sufficiency as to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; (3) weight of the evidence; and (4) discretionary aspects of sentencing. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of recorded phone calls | Calls are admissible as opposing party statements (Rule 803(25)) and probative of intent/state of mind | Calls are hearsay, not admissions, and more prejudicial than probative | Calls admissible as party-opponent statements; probative and not unduly prejudicial; admitted for jury weight |
| Admission of diary/iPad entries | Diary admissible as party statement and under state-of-mind exception (Rule 803(3)); relevant to motive/intent | Diary hearsay and prejudicial; contains no plan to rape or injure | Diary admissible both as opposing party statement and under Rule 803(3); not unduly prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (bodily injury with deadly weapon) | Evidence supports conviction: gun pressed to victim’s head, victim had facial bruising, firearm qualifies as deadly weapon | Jackson argued bruising caused by hand, gun not used to cause bodily injury or attempt to do so | Sufficient evidence: bruising and repeated pressing of firearm to head support bodily injury by deadly weapon; conviction upheld |
| Weight of the evidence / motion for new trial | Commonwealth: testimonial, DNA, physical and circumstantial evidence corroborate verdict | Jackson: lack of eyewitnesses, limited physical trauma means verdict shocks conscience | Weight claim denied; trial court properly credited victim and corroborating evidence; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock the conscience |
| Sentencing (disproportionality / discretionary aspects) | Sentence within standard guideline range and appropriate given violent facts | Sentence (20.5–43 yrs) effectively life; court failed to consider rehabilitative needs, relationship context, and alleged limited physical injury | No abuse of discretion: court considered factors (gravity, protection, age), sentence standard-range and not disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. Commonwealth, 156 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2006) (party admissions are exceptions to hearsay rule)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995) (statements need not be confessions to qualify as opposing-party statements)
- In the Interest of M.H., 758 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2000) (bruising can constitute "bodily injury")
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for weight-of-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discretionary aspects of sentencing review and when a substantial question is presented)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (a sentence that may result in life confinement is not per se unreasonable if court considered defendant’s age)
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2003) (motion for new trial on weight grounds explained)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (finder of fact may believe all, part, or none of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 811 A.2d 556 (Pa. 2002) (harmless-error framework for evidentiary rulings)