222 A.3d 386
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In July 2015, 14‑year‑old B.L. (Victim) attended a family reunion with her 15‑year‑old boyfriend; Appellant Joshua Leap (28) was a cousin of the boyfriend.
- Victim awoke around 4:00 AM to find Leap on top of her in a tent; she testified he pulled down her pants, pinned her, put his hand over her mouth, and raped her.
- A hospital sexual assault exam and DNA testing showed Leap’s semen on Victim’s clothing and inside her vagina; Victim gave consistent statements to medical personnel and police.
- Leap sought to impeach Victim with a Facebook repost (a typed sentence, authored by an unknown person over a year earlier) suggesting a willingness to falsely claim rape; the trial court excluded the post as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
- The Commonwealth’s expert on sexual‑violence dynamics (under 42 Pa.C.S. §5920) answered a hypothetical by saying the hypothetical victim’s consistent statements made “them credible”; the court promptly gave a curative instruction that credibility is for the jury alone.
- A jury convicted Leap of rape and related offenses; he received an aggregate 90–244 month sentence and appealed, raising (1) exclusion of the Facebook post and (2) denial of a mistrial after the expert’s credibility remark.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Leap's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Victim’s Facebook repost as impeachment evidence | The post was irrelevant, authored by another person long before the assault, and its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value | The post showed Victim’s bias and willingness to lie, supporting Leap’s theory that sex was consensual and later mischaracterized as rape | Court affirmed: exclusion proper — post irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether a mistrial was required after the Commonwealth’s expert opined a hypothetical victim “seems to make them credible” | Expert testimony was permissible on victim responses; the court’s curative instruction cured any prejudicial effect | The expert impermissibly vouched for the victim and bolstered credibility, requiring a mistrial | Court affirmed denial of mistrial: testimony was brief, court promptly and repeatedly instructed jurors they alone judge credibility, cure sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Poplawski v. Commonwealth, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance is threshold for admissibility)
- Drumheller v. Commonwealth, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (definition of relevance under Rule 401)
- Birch v. Commonwealth, 616 A.2d 977 (Pa. 1992) (scope of cross‑examination within trial court’s discretion)
- Guilford v. Commonwealth, 861 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limits on impeachment with collateral matters and extrinsic specific‑instance evidence)
- Seese v. Commonwealth, 517 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1986) (error to admit expert testimony as to witness credibility)
- Maconeghy v. Commonwealth, 171 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017) (expert testimony and credibility issues)
- Bryant v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (mistrial is extreme remedy; assess whether jury could render true verdict)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2001) (presumption that jury follows curative instructions)
- Cannavo v. Commonwealth, 199 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2018) (undeveloped appellate arguments may be waived)