Com. v. Patterson, A., 1539 MDA 2015

Background

In May 2012, when B.S. was 15, Patterson allegedly groped and then forcibly performed oral sex on B.S. at Patterson’s farm; B.S. had been recruited for farm work.
Commonwealth charged Patterson with multiple sexual offenses (rape, statutory sexual assault, IDSI, corruption of minors, indecent assault); some charges later withdrawn; jury convicted on Corruption of Minors and Indecent Assault (April 6, 2015).
Commonwealth sought to introduce testimony from two other teenage victims, G.J. and C.B., under Pa.R.E. 404(b) as evidence of a common plan/scheme; trial court admitted their testimony with cautionary jury instructions.
Jury convicted Patterson on two counts; sentencing court imposed consecutive statutory maximum terms (aggregate 6–12 years), citing Patterson’s prior similar convictions, grooming history, and risk to the public.
Patterson appealed, challenging (1) admission of prior-bad-acts testimony and (2) discretionary aspects of sentence (above guidelines and statutory maximums).

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Patterson's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting G.J. and C.B. testimony under Pa.R.E. 404(b) (common plan/scheme).	Testimony admissible: incidents were similar in time, place (farm), victims’ ages, recruitment by offer of work, and sexual conduct — probative for common scheme; cautionary instruction mitigated prejudice.	Admission was improper prior-bad-acts evidence that unduly prejudiced Patterson.	Affirmed: prior acts sufficiently similar; trial court’s cautionary instructions mitigated unfair prejudice; admission was proper under common plan/scheme exception.
Whether sentencing court abused discretion by imposing consecutive statutory maximums above guidelines.	Sentencing court considered PSI, guidelines, prior convictions, grooming pattern, and public protection; explained reasons on record for departing from guidelines.	Court treated Patterson’s prior convictions as basis for excessive departure and acted from prejudice; sentence manifestly unreasonable.	Affirmed: court provided contemporaneous reasons, considered factors, found Patterson a continuing threat and not rehabilitatable; departure not unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Booth, 435 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Super. 1981) (common plan/scheme requires similar character of acts)
Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (compare factual details to establish common scheme)
Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014) (logical connection requirement between crimes)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (cautionary instruction can ameliorate prejudice from prior-bad-acts evidence)
Commonwealth v. Watkins, 843 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 2003) (jury presumed to follow limiting instructions)
Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements to preserve and present discretionary-sentencing claims)
Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa. Super. 2003) (what raises a substantial question for appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187 (Pa. Super. 2008) (departure above guidelines raises substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for discretionary sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court must state reasons on record when departing from guidelines)
Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statement of reasons need not be highly technical)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (PSI creates presumption court considered relevant sentencing factors)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (PSI and sentencing discretion principles)
Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 863 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 2004) (statutory maximum not per se unreasonable when court balances factors)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (courts should infrequently find sentences unreasonable when proper standard applied)