Com. v. Martinez, N.
1337 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Appellant Nelson Martinez, stepfather to victim E.B., was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, IDSI with a child, aggravated indecent assault of a child, sexual assault, corruption of minors, and indecent assault of a child for repeated sexual abuse of his 11–12‑year‑old stepdaughter during 2012. Medical exam found rectal lacerations consistent with anal penetration in late Oct/early Nov 2012.
- Trial lasted three days; both victim and Martinez testified. Martinez denied the allegations. The jury convicted on all counts.
- Before sentencing Martinez underwent a Sexual Offender Assessment Board (SOAB) evaluation (which diagnosed Pedophilic Disorder and recommended SVP designation); Martinez obtained an independent evaluation but did not present it at sentencing.
- At sentencing the court reviewed the PSI, SOAB report, victim impact statements, and other materials; found Martinez a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) and imposed consecutive statutory maximum terms for an aggregate 43½ to 87 years’ incarceration.
- Martinez appealed, raising (1) discretionary‑sentencing challenge, (2) exclusion/quashing of subpoenas for two juvenile witnesses, (3) denial of motion in limine to exclude testimony of Deputy Bonner (observing alleged self‑fondling at preliminary hearing), and (4) sufficiency of evidence for SVP designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Martinez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Discretionary aspects of sentence (excessive/bias) | Sentence within statutory limits and justified by gravity of crimes, PSI, victim impact, and need to protect public | Sentence excessive, court showed ill‑will and failed to state adequate reasons on record | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered PSI and sentencing factors; harsh remarks did not show bias rendering sentence unreasonable |
| 2. Exclusion/quash of subpoenas for juvenile witnesses (Noah & Moses) | Testimony was speculative, boys could not provide dates or reliable facts; guardian ad litem and therapists opposed contact due to trauma risk | Boys would provide exculpatory testimony that E.B. did not visit Martinez at Walnut St. on relevant dates; quashing violated compulsory‑process right | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; testimony likely speculative, risked harm to children, and would not materially alter timeframe established by other evidence |
| 3. Denial of motion in limine to exclude Deputy Bonner’s testimony | Testimony relevant to show sexual arousal/motive; witness observed conduct and could be cross‑examined | Testimony irrelevant, speculative, prejudicial (no expert to link behavior to arousal) | Affirmed — trial court found testimony relevant and probative; prejudice did not outweigh probative value |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for SVP designation | SOAB expert diagnosed Pedophilic Disorder and opined Martinez likely to reoffend based on offense facts, grooming, progression, and records | Martinez challenged sufficiency and relied on his independent evaluation (not produced at sentencing) | Affirmed — SOAB report and expert opinion provided clear and convincing evidence to support SVP designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (standard for reviewing "unreasonable" sentence and factors under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781)
- Meals v. Commonwealth, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (treatment of expert SVP diagnosis as evidence and distinction between sufficiency and weight)
- Dixon v. Commonwealth, 907 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (SVP assessment process and expert obligations)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 324 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1974) (compulsory‑process right not absolute; admissibility governs subpoenas)
- McKenzie v. Commonwealth, 581 A.2d 655 (Pa. 1990) (right to compulsory process and materiality standard)