222 A.3d 386
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- In July 2015, 14‑year‑old Victim attended a family reunion with her 15‑year‑old boyfriend; Appellant (28) was present and later raped Victim in a tent; DNA (semen) linked Appellant to the assault. Victim gave consistent statements to hospital personnel and police and a SANE exam and DNA testing corroborated sexual contact.
- Commonwealth charged Appellant with rape and related offenses; a jury convicted him and the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 90 to 244 months’ incarceration. Appellant appealed.
- At trial Appellant attempted to impeach Victim with a Facebook repost (a typed sentence reposted on Victim’s page over a year earlier) suggesting willingness to lie about rape; the trial court excluded the post as irrelevant and prejudicial.
- Commonwealth’s expert (qualified under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920) answered a hypothetical and made a one‑sentence comment that a hypothetical victim’s consistent statements “seem to make them credible”; Appellant moved for mistrial which was denied; the court gave a curative instruction emphasizing jurors are sole judges of credibility.
- Appellant argued on appeal (1) the Facebook post should have been admissible to impeach Victim and (2) the expert’s comment required a mistrial; the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Victim’s Facebook post for impeachment | Leap: post showed Victim’s bias and willingness to lie; supported defense theory of consensual sex then false rape report | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: post not authored by Victim, remote in time, unrelated to participants or events, lacks context; irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rules 401/403/607/608 | Affirmed exclusion; trial court did not abuse discretion—post irrelevant and prejudicial, impeachment denied; related alternative arguments waived |
| Motion for mistrial based on expert’s credibility comment | Leap: expert impermissibly vouched for victim’s credibility; prejudice required mistrial | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: testimony brief and inadvertent; court promptly gave curative instructions and jurors presumed to follow them; no incurable prejudice | Denial of mistrial affirmed; curative instruction cured potential prejudice; case distinguished from precedents where no curative instruction was given |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance is threshold for admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Guilford, 861 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limits on impeachment by extrinsic evidence and collateral matters)
- Commonwealth v. Seese, 517 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1986) (error to admit expert testimony as to witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Maconeghy, 171 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017) (expert vouching for credibility and its effect when no curative instruction was given)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2001) (presumption that jurors follow court instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (mistrial is extreme remedy; reviewed for abuse of discretion)