Com. v. Spinks, T.
1945 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Terrell Wayne Spinks was charged in two separate informations (CR 716-2014 and CR 1128-2014) with multiple sexual offenses against six minor girls (three stepdaughters and three friends) for conduct occurring 2011–2014.
- The first information charged crimes against all six victims; the second charged additional offenses against one stepdaughter (M.M.H.) after she later reported abuse.
- Spinks moved to sever into six separate trials (one per victim); the Commonwealth sought consolidation of both informations into one trial.
- At a pretrial hearing, the Commonwealth forecast overlapping testimony showing repeated, similar sexual acts (anal, vaginal, oral intercourse; groping; exposure; grooming with pornography) and interrelated events where multiple victims witnessed or corroborated one another.
- The trial court denied severance, consolidated the informations, and a jury convicted Spinks on almost all counts; he was sentenced to 43–86 years imprisonment.
- On appeal Spinks argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying severance under Pa.R.Crim.P. 583; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder/consolidation of two informations and multiple victims was improper under Pa.R.Crim.P. 582/583 | Commonwealth: evidence of each offense would be admissible in separate trials, shows common scheme/intent, and is separable by jury | Spinks: requested six separate trials (one per victim) to avoid undue prejudice and propensity inference | Denied; consolidation proper — evidence showed a common scheme, intent/lack of mistake, res gestae interconnection, and no undue prejudice to jury ability to separate accounts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2004) (standard of review for consolidation/severance discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez–Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice from joinder)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (three-part test for joinder: mutual admissibility, separability, undue prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prior similar sexual acts admissible as common scheme evidence)
- Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prior convictions admitted under common-scheme/signature theory)
- Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996) (strikingly similar molestations form common scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (prior bad acts admissible to show intent)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2006) (res gestae exception allows other acts to tell complete story)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super. 2015) (no undue prejudice where crimes are related and interwoven)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (related series of crimes may be tried together)