Com. v. Marotta, M.
3407 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Manfred Marotta was tried in a bench trial for sexual offenses based on conduct toward two victims: his niece E.S. and former employee/manager H.M.; he was convicted of two counts of indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(1)).
- E.S. testified that Marotta repeatedly touched her vagina (including digital penetration) without consent while she lived with and depended on him; she felt intimidated and unable to leave due to reliance on him for housing and income.
- H.M. testified to two incidents at Marotta’s home: inappropriate rubbing of her inner thighs/legs and a separate incident in which she was brought to his bedroom, told to lie on the bed, had clothing removed, and was massaged and touched; she testified she felt intimidated because Marotta was her employer and larger in size.
- The Commonwealth introduced inculpatory statements: an apology letter in which Marotta admitted touching E.S., and interview testimony in which he acknowledged touching E.S.’s vagina and being sexually attracted to her.
- After conviction, Marotta was sentenced to an aggregate 4 to 23 months’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ consecutive probation with conditions (no contact with victims, psychological evaluation/treatment, and no unsupervised contact with persons under 22).
- Marotta appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence, (2) erroneous admission of his statements under the corpus delicti rule, (3) impermissible amendment of the bill of information to extend the alleged date range, and (4) unlawfully broad sentencing condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with persons under 22.
Issues
| Issue | Marotta’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for indecent assault | Evidence was insufficient to prove indecent contact without consent | Victim testimony and Marotta’s admissions proved nonconsensual indecent contact | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient |
| Admissibility of Marotta’s statements (corpus delicti) | Statements inadmissible because corpus delicti not established before admission | Corpus delicti was shown by victim testimony on day one, so statements were admissible | Admission affirmed — no abuse of discretion |
| Amendment of bill of information to extend date range by one month | Amendment prejudiced Marotta because he lacked notice of new range before trial | Amendment merely changed the date, did not add new offenses or facts, and caused no prejudice | Amendment allowed — no prejudice shown |
| Sentencing condition barring unsupervised contact with persons under 22 | Condition is overly broad, unrelated to rehabilitation, and unduly restrictive | Condition was within court’s discretion (but trial objections/post-sentence motion not preserved) | Claim waived for failure to preserve; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Castelhun, 889 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2005) (victim testimony alone can support sex-offense conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Otterson, 947 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2008) (two-phase corpus delicti rule explanation)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes, 870 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2005) (discussion of corpus delicti principles)
- Commonwealth v. Veon, 109 A.3d 754 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factors to determine prejudice from amending information)
- Commonwealth v. I.F., 800 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2002) (amendment that merely changes a date is permissible when it does not alter charges)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2012) (corpus delicti rule and standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 933 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Super. 2007) (preservation requirement for discretionary-sentencing challenges)