Com. v. Snyder, C.
251 A.3d 782
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Victim S.F., age 12, testified Appellant Christopher Snyder awoke her in fall 2017 and touched her inner leg/vaginal area; she later disclosed the incident about four months afterward.
- Commonwealth’s information alleged the offense occurred between November 1, 2017 and March 6, 2018; at trial the victim narrowed it to early–mid November 2017.
- Jury trial held March 2019; Snyder was convicted of corruption of minors and multiple indecent-assault counts; sentenced to 9–20 months imprisonment, 8 years probation, $500 non-mandatory fine, costs, and lifetime Tier III registration under Subchapter H (not designated an SVP).
- Snyder appealed raising four issues: (1) alleged Devlin/date-variance and alibi prejudice; (2) refusal to give a prompt-complaint jury instruction; (3) constitutionality of Subchapter H registration scheme; and (4) imposition of fines/costs without an ability-to-pay inquiry.
- Superior Court affirmed convictions; vacated and remanded as to the non-mandatory $500 fine for lack of an ability-to-pay inquiry; affirmed imposition of costs (no presentence ability-to-pay required for costs); Subchapter H constitutional claims were found waived or not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Snyder's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Date variance / Devlin (alibi) | Information gave a permissible date range; victim’s testimony narrowed to Nov 2–22, 2017 which matches the information; no prejudice | Information timeframe shifted at trial and prejudiced Snyder’s alibi defense | No Devlin violation; dates at trial were consistent with the information and victim testimony, so no prejudice; conviction stands |
| 2) Prompt-complaint jury instruction | Victim was a child, confused and frightened, and Snyder had custodial/parental role; instruction not warranted | Failure to give instruction denied Snyder a tool to challenge complainant’s delay | No abuse of discretion; refusal proper given victim’s age, relationship to Snyder, and nonviolent nature of assault |
| 3) Constitutionality of Subchapter H registration | Challenges largely mirror Torsilieri; issues require record development and were not preserved below | Subchapter H is punitive, violates due process/Apprendi/Alleyne and state constitutional protections | Constitutional challenges were waived or unaddressed on the merits; Superior Court declined to reach substantive relief (citing waiver and Torsilieri context) |
| 4) Ability-to-pay for fines and costs | Agreed ability-to-pay must be determined before non-mandatory fines (Ford); argued no presentence ability-to-pay determination is required for costs | Trial court imposed $500 fine and costs without any inquiry into ability to pay | Vacated $500 non-mandatory fine for lack of ability-to-pay inquiry and remanded for resentencing; costs affirmed — Rule 706 does not require a presentence ability-to-pay hearing for costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Devlin v. Commonwealth, 333 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1975) (date in indictment not controlling; prosecution must fix a reasonably definite date to allow alibi defense)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (victim testimony can supply sufficient temporal particularity when precise date unknown)
- Groff v. Commonwealth, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. Super. 1988) (permitting date flexibility for child-victim cases)
- Jette v. Commonwealth, 818 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2003) (child-victim testimony may lack precise dates; some imprecision tolerated)
- Snoke v. Commonwealth, 580 A.2d 295 (Pa. Super. 1990) (refusal to give prompt-complaint instruction proper where victim was a young child and perpetrator held position of trust)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 904 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prompt-complaint instruction evaluated case-by-case with focus on victim’s age/condition)
- Muniz v. Commonwealth, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (registration requirements were punitive as applied retroactively; led to legislative changes)
- Butler v. Commonwealth, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020) (Butler II) (post-amendment analysis of registration provisions and SVP-related issues)
- Lacombe v. Commonwealth, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020) (upheld Subchapter I as nonpunitive for certain registrants)
- Torsilieri v. Commonwealth, 232 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2020) (remanded for development of record on Subchapter H challenges and expert evidence)
- Ford v. Commonwealth, 217 A.3d 824 (Pa. 2019) (trial court must determine ability to pay before imposing non-mandatory fines)
- Lehman v. Commonwealth, 243 A.3d 7 (Pa. 2020) (treatment of costs as part of sentence implicating legality; clarified statutory framework for costs)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (Mendoza–Martinez factors for determining whether a sanction is punitive)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases the penalty must be submitted to a jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (extends Apprendi to facts that increase mandatory minimums)