Com. v. Stevens, A., 920 EDA 2022

On October 3, 2020, 10-month-old Z.S. was found unresponsive at home after appellant Austin Stevens said he had given her a bath, left briefly, heard a thud, and later found her unconscious; Stevens did not call 9-1-1 immediately and searched his phone for ‘‘what if your baby stops breathing’’ and ‘‘how do you know if your baby is dead.’’
Paramedics and ER doctors pronounced Z.S. dead; blood was noted in her diaper and she was asystolic on arrival.
Autopsy and Commonwealth experts found anorectal trauma consistent with penetrative sexual trauma and extensive non-accidental blunt-force injuries to the head, brain, spinal cord, and eyes; injuries were inconsistent with a short bathtub fall and caused death.
Defense expert agreed the head injuries were abusive head trauma and the immediate cause of death but could not definitively attribute the anal trauma to sexual abuse.
A jury convicted Stevens of first-degree murder, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and endangering the welfare of a child; he received life without parole plus additional consecutive/probation terms.
On appeal Stevens challenged (1) the denial of an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction, (2) the sole-and-exclusive-custody jury instruction, and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing an involuntary manslaughter (lesser-included) instruction	Commonwealth: evidence showed intentional abusive trauma, so manslaughter instruction not supported	Stevens: evidence could support accidental bathtub fall and negligent death (involuntary manslaughter)	Denial affirmed — experts (including defense) agreed injuries were intentional abuse, so no reasonable basis for manslaughter instruction
Whether the sole-and-exclusive-custody jury instruction was erroneous or confusing	Commonwealth: permissive instruction was appropriate to permit inference of responsibility	Stevens: instruction (on appeal) was ambiguous and prejudicial	Waived on appeal for not preserving/including in 1925(b); trial court properly gave a permissive (not mandatory) inference
Whether evidence was insufficient to sustain first-degree murder conviction	Commonwealth: expert opinions established intentional abusive head trauma; delay in calling 9-1-1 was evidence of intent	Stevens: insufficient proof of intent/causation; argued lack of motive and delay did not establish murder	Issue waived for lack of specificity in Rule 1925(b); alternatively, on the merits evidence was sufficient — all experts concluded death resulted from intentional abusive head trauma

Commonwealth v. Rush, 162 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
Commonwealth v. Scott, 73 A.3d 599 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court not required to give every requested instruction)
Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (manslaughter instruction only when trial evidence reasonably supports it)
Commonwealth v. Soltis, 687 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. 1996) (lesser-included manslaughter instruction only if evidence could support guilty of manslaughter but not murder)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 876 A.2d 916 (Pa. 2005) (elements of first-degree murder)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (premeditation/specific intent can form in a very brief period)
Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (appellate court cannot meaningfully review when appellant fails to specify issues)
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Rule 1925(b) waiver applies even if trial court addressed the claim)