Com. v. Kemberling, A.
2087 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Lee Kemberling lived with the victim’s grandmother; the victim (A.C.) testified the sexual abuse began when she was 3–4 and occurred in a trailer on the grandmother’s property.
- A.C., age 10 at trial, testified to multiple occasions in which Kemberling removed her clothing, penetrated her vagina with his penis, touched her mouth and anus with his penis, directed her to perform oral sex, and viewed sexual videos in her presence.
- Videotaped forensic interview of A.C. (Children’s Resource Center) and an edited audio statement to Children & Youth Services were admitted at trial; a body diagram marked by A.C. was also admitted.
- A jury convicted Kemberling of rape of a child, IDSI with a child, aggravated indecent assault of a child, indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors; he was later designated an SVP and sentenced to 30–60 years.
- Post‑sentence motion raised sufficiency/weight of evidence, admission of a witness’s testimony under the Tender Years doctrine, leg restraint visibility, court ordering pizza for jurors, edited recordings, and prosecutorial misconduct; trial court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Kemberling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual offenses | A.C.’s live testimony (and CRC interview) sufficiently proved acts charged | Evidence was insufficient—no medical corroboration and no proof of penetration or other specific acts | Convictions affirmed; victim’s uncorroborated testimony and CRC interview were sufficient |
| Admission of testimony from Yahira Torres (Tender Years notice) | Torres offered only observations of A.C.’s demeanor, not hearsay statements about abuse | Torres should have been listed in tender years notice and court should have held in camera reliability hearing | Admission of Torres’s limited testimony upheld; tender years exception not implicated and any objection waived |
| Verdict against weight of evidence | Testimony and corroborating exhibits warranted jury verdicts | Verdict shocked conscience given lack of physical evidence; trial court should grant new trial | Trial court’s denial of new trial affirmed; no abuse of discretion in weight ruling |
| Claims of trial prejudice: leg restraint, pizza, edited recordings, prosecutorial misconduct | Record shows no significant prejudice; many objections not preserved; recordings were edited with defense approval | Restraint visible to jurors; exclusion from lunch showed bias; edited recordings and gestures prejudiced jury | Most claims waived for lack of contemporaneous objection or unsupported by record; no reversible misconduct found |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Commonwealth, 589 A.2d 217 (Pa.Super. 1991) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can support sexual‑offense conviction)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards for motions for new trial based on weight of the evidence)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (trial court’s discretion on weight claims given "gravest consideration")
- Powell v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (contemporaneous objection rule and waiver principles)
- Sampson v. Commonwealth, 900 A.2d 887 (Pa.Super. 2006) (standards for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)