221 A.3d 186
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Appellant Terry Lee Meredith was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI) and strangulation for a July 20, 2017 assault on his partner, who suffered bruises and rectal tears consistent with sexual assault.
- The victim’s 12-year-old son, C.W., witnessed part of the assault; C.W. was 13 at trial and was found competent to testify after a court colloquy.
- Defense played C.W.’s Children’s Resource Center interview for the jury and cross-examined him about possible influence by family conversations.
- Two recorded prison calls included Appellant admitting he choked the victim; jury convicted on IDSI and strangulation but acquitted on false imprisonment.
- Appellant received an aggregate sentence of 13 to 26 years’ imprisonment and appealed, raising (1) that C.W. was incompetent/tainted and (2) that a mistrial was required after Appellant’s father spoke with a juror and jurors discussed safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Meredith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in finding C.W. competent given alleged "taint" of his recollection | C.W. demonstrated the minimal capacities in the court colloquy; any memory problems go to credibility for the jury, not competency | C.W.’s recollection was tainted by overheard family conversations and required a Delbridge taint hearing | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; C.W., age 13 at trial, was competent and alleged taint raised credibility issues for the jury |
| Whether a mistrial was required after Appellant’s father contacted a juror and jurors discussed safety | Contact was innocuous; trial court individually questioned jurors who confirmed they could be fair | Contact and ensuing discussion created a reasonable likelihood of prejudice and compromised impartiality | Affirmed. Trial court reasonably denied mistrial after voir dire of jurors showed no loss of impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (defines "taint" and sets three-part competency test for minors)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2004) (plenary review standard for competency determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Pena, 31 A.3d 704 (Pa.Super. 2011) (age at trial controls competency; witnesses 14+ presumed competent)
- Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224 (Pa.Super. 2006) (memory issues for teenage witnesses are credibility, not taint)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647 (Pa.Super. 2009) (competency assessed by age at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2001) (ex parte juror contact disfavored but not per se mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 637 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1993) (declines per se rule disqualifying juror for contact)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (mistrial required only if event reasonably deprived party of fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. McCamey, 154 A.3d 352 (Pa.Super. 2017) (third-party contact with juror evaluated under trial court’s discretion and juror voir dire)