Com. v. Tyson, T., Sr.
Com. v. Tyson, T., Sr. No. 1697 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 16, 2017Background
- In October 2015 Thomas D. Tyson, Sr. was charged with aggravated indecent assault (2nd-degree felony) and indecent assault (1st-degree misdemeanor) for conduct alleged to have occurred Sept. 13–14, 2014 involving his five-year-old granddaughter.
- Allegations: while the child slept on a loveseat in the living room, Tyson sat beside her, licked his finger, and fondled/penetrated the child’s vagina.
- Tyson pled not guilty; a jury convicted him of both counts at trial on March 17, 2016.
- Sentencing (Aug. 2, 2016): 3–10 years’ incarceration on the aggravated indecent assault count, concurrent 5 years’ probation on the indecent assault count.
- Post-sentence motions were denied; Tyson appealed and filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement raising three issues: (1) jury indicated reasonable doubt yet convicted; (2) verdict was against the weight of evidence; (3) erroneous jury instruction regarding the victim’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Commonwealth argued evidence supported convictions | Tyson contended evidence failed to prove all elements of the offenses | Waived — Tyson’s 1925(b) statement lacked the specificity required to preserve a sufficiency claim (Freeman) |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth defended verdict as supported by jury credibility findings | Tyson argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Waived — appellant’s brief failed to develop the argument or cite authority/record (Pa.R.A.P. 2119; Knox) |
| Jury instruction during deliberations | Commonwealth maintained the court’s supplemental instruction was appropriate | Tyson asserted the instruction about the child’s testimony was inaccurate/inadequate | Waived — defense counsel agreed to the proposed supplemental instruction during the bench conference, so no contemporaneous objection preserved the claim (Parker) |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Rule 1925(b) specificity required to preserve sufficiency challenge)
- Genovese, 675 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super. 1996) (appellate briefs must develop arguments with pertinent discussion)
- Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (issues inadequately developed or without legal citation are waived)
- Parker, 104 A.3d 17 (Pa. Super. 2014) (a specific, timely objection is required to preserve a jury-instruction claim)