Com. v. Peyatt, S.
655 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Victim (11) and her 12‑year‑old stepbrother stayed overnight at appellant Shirl Peyatt’s home on July 13, 2015; both slept in the living room.
- Victim awoke twice: first felt pants being pulled down, then later saw and felt appellant digitally penetrate her and later he asked if he could "lick down there."
- Appellant gave the victim $20 and told her not to tell anyone or he would hurt her brother.
- Commonwealth presented prior‑bad‑acts testimony from T.B., who described a similar assault by appellant in 2004–2005 when she was 11–12, after an in camera hearing under Rule 404/"other acts" analysis.
- A jury convicted Peyatt of multiple sexual offenses including aggravated indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor; court sentenced him to 144–288 months.
- Peyatt appealed, raising: right to be present at portions of a Tender Years Hearsay Act (TYHA) hearing, admissibility of prior bad acts (T.B.), and sufficiency of unlawful contact with a minor charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be present at TYHA in‑camera third‑party testimony | Commonwealth: statute grants presence when court hears parent/custodian/other person, but victim was available at trial so no deprivation of confrontation rights | Peyatt: he was entitled to be present for third‑party testimony at TYHA hearing; absence deprived him of confrontation and local transport rules violated | Court: No statutory or constitutional right to be present for third‑party testimony when victim is available at trial; claim waived re: transport rules; no merit |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts (T.B.) under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Commonwealth: T.B.’s testimony shows common scheme/plan/motive given strong factual nexus with charged offense | Peyatt: evidence not "necessary," prejudicial, and trial court failed to properly balance probative value vs. prejudice | Court: Trial court properly found close factual nexus (victim ages, location, time, sleeping victims, method), conducted in camera hearing, and gave limiting instruction; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of unlawful contact with a minor (18 Pa.C.S. §6318) | Commonwealth: asking the victim "if he could lick down there" satisfied "contact"/communication element; statute criminalizes communications for sexual purposes and is complete upon communication | Peyatt: in‑person contact did not qualify because there was no prior enticement/communication to induce presence; request came after assault | Court: Question to victim constituted communication for sexual purposes; sufficient evidence to convict |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Sitler, 144 A.3d 156 (Pa. Super. 2016) (requirement of close factual nexus for other‑acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114 (Pa. 2017) (other‑acts evidence particularly probative when case is circumstantial; limiting instructions relevant to balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sufficiency review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Rose, 960 A.2d 149 (Pa. Super. 2008) (interpreting §6318 unlawful contact as criminalizing communications for sexual purposes; crime complete upon communication)