Com. v. T.B.
232 A.3d 915
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background:
- Appellant T.B. (the child’s father) was convicted after a jury trial of rape of a child, unlawful contact with a minor, aggravated indecent assault of a child, indecent assault of a person under 13, and endangering the welfare of a child; sentenced to 9–18 years.
- Incident (June 12, 2017): while babysitting his five‑year‑old daughter L.B., Appellant allegedly removed her pants, had lotion on a couch, and digitally and vaginally penetrated her; Mother and others returned within ~30 minutes and observed L.B. upset and partially undressed.
- L.B. made out‑of‑court disclosures to Mother and to Officer McCarthy; she underwent a videotaped forensic interview by Carolina Castano and a medical exam; no physical evidence of abuse was found.
- Castano (forensic interviewer) prepared a Team Interview Summary and testified for the Commonwealth as a fact witness; she checked that L.B. provided “sensory details” and explained the significance on direct examination without being formally qualified as an expert.
- Defense objected at trial to what it characterized as improper expert testimony by Castano and later to a prosecutor’s question to L.B. as asked and answered (now argued on appeal as leading); the trial court admitted Castano’s explanatory testimony and allowed a clarifying question to L.B.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) Castano’s testimony was permissible lay opinion/factual explanation under Pa.R.E. 701 and (2) the prosecutor’s clarifying question was not improperly leading (and the leading objection was waived).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (T.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castano improperly gave expert testimony without being qualified | Her testimony merely explained forensic‑interview methods and what "sensory detail" means; factual, helpful background | Castano gave expert opinions (that sensory detail showed abuse) without being qualified or noticed as an expert | Affirmed — testimony was permissible lay/fact testimony under Pa.R.E.701; explaining interview composition/term did not convert her into an expert |
| Whether prosecutor elicited a prejudicial, leading question from the child witness | The question clarified a confused child and did not suggest the substantive answer | The prosecutor’s question was leading and prejudiced the defense | Affirmed — issue waived for failure to contemporaneously object on that ground; court found the question was clarifying and not leading |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307 (Pa. Super. 2019) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Branham v. Rohm & Haas Co., 19 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2011) (technical expertise does not automatically convert a fact witness into an expert)
- Brady by Brady v. Ballay, 704 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Super. 1997) (fact testimony may include opinions rationally based on perceptions and helpful to understanding)
- Crespo v. Hughes, M.D., 167 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Pa.R.E.701 allows treating‑physician clarification as factual testimony)
- Deeds v. University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 110 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2015) (physician testimony based on treatment/observation is factual, not expert opinion on standard of care)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (definition of a leading question)
- Commonwealth v. Pearson, 685 A.2d 551 (Pa. Super. 1996) (failure to raise contemporaneous objection waives claim on appeal)