Com. v. Montgomery, J.
1917 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 23, 2017Background
- Montgomery was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter (offenses dated 2002–2004): aggravated indecent assault of a child, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child, indecent assault of a person under 13, corruption of minors, and indecent exposure.
- Victim (M.A.) testified in detail about repeated sexual contact and oral sex beginning at ages 4–8; she had disclosed abuse in various jurisdictions years later and entered therapy before the Washington County report.
- Trial lasted two days; appellant testified and denied the allegations. Jury found him guilty and determined the victim was under 13 at the time.
- At sentencing the court ordered an SOAB assessment; the SOAB recommended SVP designation. A contested SVP hearing followed with experts testifying for both sides. The trial court found Montgomery an SVP by clear and convincing evidence.
- Trial court sentenced Montgomery to an aggregate term of 120–240 months and imposed SVP classification. Post-sentence motion was denied; Montgomery appealed, raising sufficiency, SVP-designation, and an ineffective-assistance claim (the latter not pursued on appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Victim's testimony (believed by jury) and corroborating conduct/texts suffice to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt | Victim’s statements were inconsistent and therefore insufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt | Convictions affirmed; victim's uncorroborated testimony, if believed, can sustain convictions and record contained sufficient evidence |
| Validity of SVP designation (clear and convincing evidence) | SOAB member’s assessment and factors (pedophilic disorder, offense facts, victim age/relationship) established SVP status | Expert for defense disputed assessment methodology and evidentiary basis; argued SOAB report flawed | SVP status affirmed; trial court credited SOAB expert, discredited defense expert, and found clear and convincing evidence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial-level claim) | (Not advanced on appeal) Trial court treated and rejected claim that counsel failed to retain an expert or file unspecified pretrial motions | Montgomery contended counsel should have hired an expert earlier and filed pretrial motions | Trial court rejected claim for lack of arguable merit and no showing of prejudice; claim not pursued on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility findings)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency standard: evidence must establish each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncorroborated sexual-assault victim testimony can support conviction if believed)
- Commonwealth v. Killinger, 888 A.2d 592 (Pa. 2005) (SVP designation requires clear and convincing proof of mental abnormality making defendant likely to reoffend)