Com. v. Soto, R.
Com. v. Soto, R. No. 840 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Soto was convicted in Dauphin County of multiple sex offenses against M.M., born 2005, including rape of a child, IDSI, aggravated indecent assault, indecent exposure, unlawful contact with a minor, corruption of minors, and related offenses.
- The jury heard a detailed, graphic account from the victim, who was seven or eight years old at the time of the offenses, and the defense challenged credibility and corroboration.
- Soto argued the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and that the trial court should have admitted evidence that other adults were alone with M.M.
- The trial court denied relief on weight and evidentiary admissibility grounds and the court ultimately imposed consecutive standard-range sentences totaling 20 to 40 years.
- Soto preserved his discretionary-sentencing challenge under Rule 2119(f), and the Superior Court reviewed the sentence for an abuse of discretion under the four-part Moury framework, ultimately upholding the judgment of sentence as not manifestly excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence claim | Soto argues M.M.’s testimony alone supports guilt and is uncorroborated | The verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to lack of corroboration | No abuse; jury credibility findings allowed; evidence supports verdict |
| Admission of third-party-alone-with-minor evidence | Evidence that other adults were alone with M.M. would exonerate Soto | Such evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible under Rape Shield constraints | Properly excluded; not relevant to outcome; does not exonerate Soto |
| Discretionary-sentencing challenge (consecutive sentences) | Aggregate 20–40 year sentence is manifestly excessive and ignores mitigating factors | Within guidelines; court considered mitigating evidence and deterrence; no abuse of discretion | Sentence within guidelines; no substantial question; aggregate term stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (weight-of-the-evidence review and credibility restraints on appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (extreme deference to jury credibility findings on weight of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Fink, 791 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2002) (rape-shield and relevance principles in evidence defense)
- Commonwealth v. Durst, 559 A.2d 504 (Pa. 1989) (explanation that other-acts evidence must bear on exoneration or guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Allburn, 721 A.2d 366 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prior minor’s sexual contact with third party not admissible to prove knowledge/consent)
- Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discretionary-sentencing review—substantial-question standard for guidelines cases)