Com. v. Singh, B.
Com. v. Singh, B. No. 1431 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Baldev Singh convicted by jury in Berks County of robbery (2 counts), simple assault (2 counts), sexual assault, intimidation of witnesses/victims, terroristic threats, and stalking; sentence appealed.
- At trial the Commonwealth presented expert testimony from Dr. Shamita Dasgupta, who specializes in domestic violence and sexual abuse in Indian culture.
- Dr. Dasgupta testified generally about disclosure patterns and cultural dynamics (e.g., importance of marriage, effects on delayed reporting), and stated there is no single typical response to sexual abuse in Indian culture.
- Defense objected pretrial under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920, arguing the testimony exceeded the expert’s permissible scope and risked prejudicial statements about perpetrator behavior; the court overruled the objection and allowed the testimony.
- Defense also contested the lack of a specific jury instruction limiting the expert’s testimony under Section 5920; no timely objection to the actual jury instruction was made at trial.
- The Superior Court affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that the testimony stayed within § 5920’s confines, was helpful to the jury, and that Singh waived several objections by failing to timely object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Dasgupta’s testimony under § 5920 | Commonwealth: expert may testify about victim behavior and cultural dynamics to aid jury | Singh: testimony exceeded expert scope, included prejudicial statements about perpetrator behavior and credibility | Testimony admissible: limited to general cultural dynamics, did not opine on victim credibility; helpful to jury; objection waived where not timely specific |
| Jury instruction on limits of § 5920 expert testimony | Commonwealth: court’s general expert-witness instruction and specific instruction on delayed reporting sufficed | Singh: trial court erred by not instructing jury on permissible limits of expert testimony under § 5920 | No error: Singh did not request such instruction or timely object; available instructions were adequate; issue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony and that it must be based on record facts and not cause unfair prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for jury instruction decisions; appellate deference to trial court)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (appellate review principles for jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Lukowich, 875 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court’s broad discretion in formulating jury instructions as long as law is presented clearly and accurately)