Com. v. Moore, K.
1762 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Keith Wayne Moore was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, statutory sexual assault, two counts of indecent assault, and corruption of a minor based on sexual activity with B.P., his paramour’s daughter, who was 12–13 at the time.
- Victim testified to progressive sexual contact (kissing → touching → oral sex → intercourse about one week before her 13th birthday); she later reported the abuse to friends and clergy, and police obtained statements.
- Trooper O’Toole interviewed Moore twice (an initial voluntary, videotaped interview and a post-arrest interview); Moore signed Miranda waivers and gave statements acknowledging possible sexual contact while heavily intoxicated.
- Moore filed post-sentence motions asserting insufficiency and weight of the evidence, excessive sentence, and that his statements should be suppressed because he didn’t understand his Miranda waiver (he alleged dyslexia and that the trooper misstated the waiver’s meaning).
- Trial court denied suppression after reviewing the video and credited the trooper’s testimony that Moore was told he was free to leave; court denied post-sentence relief and imposed concurrent standard-range sentences totaling 120–240 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual intercourse (statutory sexual assault) | Commonwealth: victim’s testimony and corroborating circumstances suffice | Moore: victim’s testimony inconsistent; no physical evidence; he denied intercourse | Held: Convictions supported—victim’s credible testimony and Moore’s statements corroborated timing and act |
| Sufficiency for indecent assault and corruption of minors | Commonwealth: victim described multiple touching incidents and enticement | Moore: Denied touching; alleged inconsistencies in victim’s account | Held: Evidence sufficient—testimony of touching and course of conduct supported convictions |
| Suppression of statements (Miranda waiver validity) | Commonwealth: Moore came voluntarily, was told he could leave, was read/wrote waiver; videotape supports voluntariness | Moore: Dyslexia prevented understanding; trooper misrepresented waiver as merely meaning willingness to answer questions, rendering waiver uninformed/coerced | Held: Suppression denied—court credited trooper, found noncustodial initial interview and knowing/voluntary waivers; second statement not tainted |
| Excessiveness/individualization of sentence | Commonwealth: standard-range concurrent sentences appropriate given gravity | Moore: Prior record minimal, no physical injury, family hardship; sentence not individualized | Held: Sentence within guideline range and not manifestly excessive; court considered statutory factors and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncorroborated victim testimony can support conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545 (Pa. 1976) (testimony so unreliable that verdict would be conjecture)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 56 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to issue individualized sentence presents substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (deference to sentencing court’s view of defendant’s character)
- Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Galendez, 27 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2011) (suppression factfinder’s credibility determinations)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (totality of circumstances for custodial interrogation/Miranda analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 581 A.2d 544 (Pa. 1990) (factors for determining whether initial illegality taints subsequent confession)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764 (Pa. 2017) (citing Green factors favorably in purge analysis)