Com. v. Jusino, R., Jr.
Com. v. Jusino, R., Jr. No. 1376 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 12, 2017Background
- Ramon Luis Jusino, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted after a four-day trial of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter, including rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (two counts), unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors, incest of a minor, and indecent assault.
- Original aggregate sentence was 31 to 70 years; after reconsideration the court reduced it to an aggregate 22 to 50 years imprisonment.
- Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion and appealed, raising three issues: competency of the child witness (A.H.), limitation of cross-examination of a police investigator, and excessiveness of sentence.
- The trial court held a competency hearing for the nine-year-old victim; it found she met the three-prong competency test (ability to communicate, observe/remember, and understand truth-telling), concluding hesitancy reflected unwillingness, not incompetence.
- During cross-examination, defense asked Detective Gareth Lowe about the child’s capacity to recall events; the prosecutor objected to the officer’s opinion about the child’s recollection and credibility, the court sustained the objection, and instructed the jury that credibility was for them to decide.
- On sentencing, the court considered the presentence investigation report, statutory factors (public protection, gravity, rehabilitation), defendant’s prior record including multiple probation/parole violations, history of substance abuse and mental-health treatment, and the child-victim status; the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 22–50 years.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child witness was competent to testify | A.H. failed all three competency prongs (communication, observation/memory, duty to tell truth) | Court: competency hearing showed she could communicate, remember events, and understand truth vs. lies; hesitation = unwillingness, not incompetence | Trial court did not abuse discretion; A.H. competent to testify |
| Whether sustaining Commonwealth’s objection and stopping cross-examination of the detective impermissibly limited confrontation/impeachment | Defense sought to impeach the child’s recollection/credibility via officer testimony about her immaturity | Court: credibility is exclusively for jury; testimony offering opinion on witness veracity usurps jury function | Sustaining the objection was proper; cross-limitation not an abuse |
| Whether aggregate sentence (22–50 years) was manifestly excessive | Sentence failed to account for rehabilitative needs, abusive background, mental-health and substance issues; consecutive terms unduly harsh | Court: PSI considered; sentencing factors and need to protect public and gravity of offense justified sentence; consecutive terms appropriate | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Delbridge v. Commonwealth, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (sets three-prong competency test for child witnesses)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 567 A.2d 1080 (Pa. Super. 1989) (expert or witness testimony on a witness’s truthfulness improperly usurps jury’s credibility function)
- Alicia v. Commonwealth, 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014) (jury is capable of determining witness veracity; expert testimony on credibility not permitted)
- Boczkowski v. Commonwealth, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (scope of cross-examination is within trial court’s discretion)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for appellate review of discretionary sentencing and four-part test for raising substantial question)
- Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sentencing is within trial court’s discretion; abuse of discretion standard)