Com. v. Sipps, M.
225 A.3d 1110
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Appellant Matthew J. Sipps was convicted by a jury of concealment of the whereabouts of a child (18 Pa.C.S. § 2909), corruption of minors, and patronizing a victim of sexual servitude (18 Pa.C.S. § 3013); sentence imposed Jan. 18, 2018; Superior Court affirmed Dec. 31, 2019.
- Victim V.M. was a 16‑year‑old runaway who had been advertised for sex on Backpage and prostituted by Ray Justis (the pimp); Commonwealth introduced the Backpage ad and testimony showing payments to Justis.
- Sipps responded to the ad, paid Justis $500 on multiple occasions, and had sexual intercourse with V.M. several times; he told investigators he characterized Justis as her “pimp.”
- On the fourth encounter, V.M. told Sipps she was a 16‑year‑old runaway; Sipps then took her from a New Jersey motel to his Aston, PA residence, where she stayed about six weeks, had restricted contact, was hidden from his family under false pretenses, and was denied a cell phone for weeks.
- V.M. testified she was afraid, begged for a phone, and that Sipps never contacted law enforcement or made efforts to return her home; Sipps argued the evidence only showed sex with a runaway and not knowledge of trafficking or unlawful concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed for conviction under § 3013 (patronizing a victim of sexual servitude) | Circumstantial and direct evidence (Backpage ad, payments to pimp, Sipps calling Justis a “pimp,” question whether she was a cop, V.M.’s statements about being controlled, Sipps’ conduct) permitted the jury to infer Sipps knew the sex acts were the result of human trafficking | Only proved sex with a young runaway; no proof Sipps knew she was trafficked or of the pimp’s movements/transportation | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to show Sipps knew V.M. was a trafficking victim when he engaged in sex acts (conviction stands) |
| Whether evidence sufficed for conviction under § 2909 (concealment of whereabouts of a child) | Sipps enticed V.M. to flee the motel, brought her to his home, hid her, restricted contact, misrepresented her status, withheld a phone, and made no effort to return her or contact authorities—supporting intent to prevent return | Sipps did not know V.M.’s residence; she came and went at his house; he gave her a phone and she eventually returned home; no proof he removed her from a known residence or intended to conceal her | Affirmed: jury reasonably found Sipps removed/harbored V.M. and intended to prevent her return (conviction stands) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 216 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2019) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (1925(b) statement must specify elements for sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vague concise statements can result in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate court should not have to guess issues from vague statements)
- Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpretation of § 2909 sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 24 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2011) (intent may be inferred from conduct and attendant circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. 2002) (circumstantial evidence can prove mens rea)