Com. v. Smith, W.
1580 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Appellant William F. Smith, a pastor, was convicted after a jury trial of indecent assault of a child, endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of minors, and unlawful contact with a minor for sexual acts against a niece (complainant S.M.) that occurred when she was about 7–8 years old.
- S.M. testified to multiple incidents in Appellant's home where he touched her and forced her to touch him; she did not report the incidents until 2011. Trial occurred in 2015; conviction and sentencing (11½–23 months plus eight years probation) were entered April 15, 2016.
- The Commonwealth introduced testimony from two other females (N.C. and N.B.) who attended Appellant’s church and described similar prior sexualized conduct, gifts/money, and a father-figure relationship.
- Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence (arguing delay, character, and alibi/opportunity issues) and the trial court’s pretrial ruling admitting other-bad-acts evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b).
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency de novo (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth) and reviewed the 404(b) ruling for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual and related convictions | Victim's testimony alone is sufficient to prove sexual offenses beyond a reasonable doubt | Victim lacks credibility; delay in reporting, character as pastor, and alleged lack of opportunity make evidence insufficient | Affirmed: Victim's uncorroborated testimony suffices; credibility/weight not a basis to overturn sufficiency claim |
| Validity of endangering charge / jury instruction (timing of statute change) | N/A (Commonwealth proceeded under current law) | Trial court should have instructed under 2002 version of §4304; Appellant also argued no duty of care | Waived: Appellant failed to object/preserve; meritless in any event and §4304 applies to religious authorities |
| Corruption of minors conviction sufficiency | Sexual acts fall within conduct that can corrupt a minor | Even if acts occurred, did not necessarily corrupt morals or show intent to corrupt | Waived/meritless: Defendant failed to develop argument; prior authority supports conviction based on sexual offenses against minors |
| Admissibility of other-bad-acts (Pa.R.E. 404(b)) | Prior acts evidence was admissible to show common scheme, plan, intent, and absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and not sufficiently similar to be admitted as common scheme | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion—prior acts showed distinctive pattern (father-figure, gifts/money, isolated contact at home/car, similar sexual conduct); limiting instruction given |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Castelhun, 889 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2005) (uncorroborated victim testimony can sustain sexual offense convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (distinction between sufficiency and weight of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014) (prior-act evidence admissible to show a distinctive behavioral pattern/common scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prior sexual acts with similar victims and circumstances may form a unique pattern supporting admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996) (upholding admission of similar prior sexual acts involving daughters/stepdaughters)
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114 (Pa. 2017) (overview of 404(b) balancing; probative value vs. unfair prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (application of §4304 to religious authorities)
- Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2011) (credibility challenges not cognizable in sufficiency claims)