Com. v. Rodriguez, J.
13 MDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 3, 2021Background
- Aug. 8, 2016: Adult complainant reported a forcible rape; a sexual assault forensic exam produced DNA.
- May 23, 2018: Commonwealth filed criminal complaint after DNA matched Jose Luis Rodriguez, then incarcerated in Essex County, NJ.
- Dec. 3, 2018: Rodriguez returned to Pennsylvania custody at SCI‑Benner Township; he was not served with the arrest warrant until May 29, 2019.
- Feb. 10, 2020: Rodriguez was tried, convicted of rape by forcible compulsion and related offenses; sentenced Dec. 3, 2020 to an aggregate 10–20 years.
- Rodriguez moved to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 for violation of his speedy-trial rights; trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Superior Court held the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence, reversed the denial, vacated the sentence, and discharged Rodriguez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying Rule 600 dismissal (speedy-trial) | Commonwealth: delays were excludable or excusable; it exercised due diligence (communications with DOC; standard procedures) | Rodriguez: 574 days elapsed from complaint to trial; Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence in returning him from NJ and in serving the warrant | Reversed. Superior Court held Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence for (1) 195 days while Rodriguez was in NJ (no extradition/explanation) and (2) 178 days after his return (service delayed by Commonwealth error). Rule 600 violation; judgment vacated and defendant discharged |
| Admission of complainant's prior sexual conduct under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(b) | Commonwealth: evidence should be excluded under the rape‑shield rule and trial court correctly granted motion in limine | Rodriguez: prior sexual conduct evidence was admissible to show consent/innocence | Not reached on appeal because Rule 600 reversal disposed of the case |
| Admissibility of complainant's statements to forensic nurse (hearsay) | Commonwealth: statements to medical provider were admissible (implication of medical treatment exception or relevance to exam) | Rodriguez: statements were hearsay and not admitted under any exception | Not reached on appeal because Rule 600 reversal disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review and dual purposes of Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. McNear, 852 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 2004) (mechanical and adjusted run dates; when extradition efforts render time excludable)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764 (Pa. 2017) (excusable delay and due diligence analysis under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (due diligence is fact‑specific and burden on Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. R. Booze, 947 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2008) (out‑of‑state incarceration does not automatically render defendant "unavailable")
- Commonwealth v. Kubin, 637 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Super. 1994) (same principle regarding out‑of‑state custody)
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 239 A.3d 1132 (Pa. Super. 2020) (Commonwealth accountable for unexplained delay in lodging a detainer or initiating extradition)
- Commonwealth v. Plowden, 157 A.3d 933 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Commonwealth’s burden to show due diligence by preponderance)
- Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017) (time when neither party is prepared for trial may be excludable in Rule 600 analysis)