Com. v. Rothwell, A., Com. v. Rothwell, A. No. 94 EDA 2016

On October 2, 2014, Anthony Dante Rothwell, performing work for Duling Construction, entered the Salvation Army office where the female complainant worked, closed the door, cornered her, exposed his penis, groped her breasts and buttocks, and digitally penetrated her through clothing.
The complainant’s friend P.P. observed the complainant’s phone beeping the next day, examined incoming texts, saved them as potential evidence, and urged the complainant to report the incident to police.
Rothwell was charged with criminal attempt—aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault without consent, and indecent assault—forcible compulsion; a jury convicted him on February 6, 2015.
The trial court sentenced Rothwell on December 4, 2015 to 7–15 years’ imprisonment; Rothwell appealed.
On appeal Rothwell raised two evidentiary challenges: (1) P.P.’s testimony identifying texts and recounting her questions to the complainant was hearsay/speculative; and (2) Detective Angelucci’s testimony about employment records (and admission of records under Pa.R.E. 902(11)) was improper due to lack of required written notice and certification availability.
The Superior Court affirmed, finding the first issue without merit (testimony admissible as non‑hearsay and under Pa.R.E. 602) and the second issue waived for failure to preserve in the Rule 1925(b) statement and at trial (and for insufficient briefing).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Admissibility of P.P.’s testimony about texts (hearsay/speculation)	P.P. lacked foundation to identify who wrote the texts and her statements were speculative/hearsay	P.P. had personal knowledge of reading the texts and her questions are non‑assertive (not hearsay); testimony provided context for investigative steps	Affirmed — testimony admissible: Pa.R.E. 602 satisfied; statements/questions not hearsay and not offered for truth
Admission of employment records under Pa.R.E. 902(11) (notice/certification)	Records should have been excluded because Commonwealth failed to give reasonable written notice and make certification available for inspection	Issue was not raised in Rule 1925(b) or at trial; Appellant failed to preserve the claim and provided inadequate briefing	Affirmed — issue waived for appellate review (failure to preserve and insufficient briefing)

Commonwealth v. Witmayer, 144 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. McCrae, 832 A.2d 1026 (Pa. 2003) (definition of hearsay; questions are non‑assertive and not hearsay)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797 (Pa. Super. 2013) (out‑of‑court statements may be admissible for non‑truth purposes to provide context)
Commonwealth v. Koch, 106 A.3d 705 (Pa. 2014) (plurality decision on whether certain text messages are hearsay; not binding here)
Commonwealth v. Mosley, 114 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussing non‑precedential effect of equally divided decisions)
Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) compliance required to preserve issues for appeal)
Commonwealth v. Murchinson, 899 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issue waived where appellant offers only boilerplate law and conclusion in briefing)