Com. v. Robinson, L.
3433 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Victim: a 3‑year‑old girl alleged that on Feb 18, 2013 defendant Latasha Robinson (the grandmother’s long‑time partner) touched her genital area, placed a finger in her vagina, and pressed breasts to her face while the child was at the grandmother’s home.
- Mother observed the child acting abnormally, the child urinated en route home and mother saw blood on the child’s underwear; underwear was turned over to police and the child was examined at CHOP, where a small amount of blood in the posterior fornix and bleeding with urination were documented.
- Forensic testing: multiple swabs matched the child; a touch DNA swab from inside the crotch matched the child and an unknown female; Robinson was excluded as a contributor; expert testified child wiping could remove or dilute DNA.
- Jury trial (Apr 17, 2015): Robinson convicted of Aggravated Indecent Assault of a Child (18 Pa.C.S. §3125(b)), Corruption of a Minor (18 Pa.C.S. §6301), and Unlawful Contact with a Minor (18 Pa.C.S. §6318).
- Sentence (July 10, 2015): aggregate 5½ to 11 years imprisonment plus four years sex‑offender probation; post‑sentence motion denied; appeal to Superior Court.
- Superior Court disposition (Jan 25, 2017): affirmed convictions, adopting trial court’s thorough opinion that credited the child’s testimony and found the evidence (including the medical findings and jury‑assessed explanations for DNA results) sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Robinson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency as to aggravated indecent assault, corruption, unlawful contact | Victim’s testimony plus medical findings (vaginal bleeding) and corroborating witness testimony suffice to prove penetration/contact beyond a reasonable doubt | DNA excluded Robinson and therefore evidence was insufficient to prove she committed the assault | Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, testimony and medical evidence supported convictions despite DNA exclusion |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury properly weighed credibility; DNA exclusion was an alternative theory but did not require acquittal; expert offered plausible explanation for missing DNA | Verdict shocks conscience because DNA excluded Robinson and timeline/opportunity were not established; alleged bias by mother | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock the court’s sense of justice; jury reasonably rejected alternative theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 953 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2008) (DNA exclusion does not mandate acquittal where other evidence supports conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Burns, 988 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same principle regarding DNA exclusion)
- Commonwealth v. Moto, 23 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2011) (jury may find DNA non‑determinative in light of other evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Filer, 846 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 2004) (victim testimony of digital penetration can support aggravated indecent assault conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Bishop, 742 A.2d 178 (Pa. Super. 1999) (corruption of a minor sustained where record established sexual abuse of child)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard of review for weight‑of‑evidence claims)