Com. v. Vasquez-Diaz, A.
Com. v. Vasquez-Diaz, A. No. 369 EDA 2014
Pa. Super. Ct.May 22, 2017Background
- Victim B.P., a minor, lived with her mother and siblings; appellant Angel Vasquez-Diaz (mother's boyfriend) was accused of following B.P. from the shower, rubbing his penis on her vagina and inserting his penis anally, and threatening to kill her family if she told anyone.
- B.P. reported the assault; her sister C.P. testified that B.P. disclosed the abuse and that appellant had previously watched C.P. shower and sleep.
- Medical expert testified that lack of visible trauma does not preclude penetration or sexual abuse; anus can stretch and superficial injuries may heal without scarring.
- A jury convicted appellant of multiple sexual offenses including rape by forcible compulsion; trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 35–70 years, including a mandatory minimum 10-year term under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.
- During appeal, § 9718 was held unconstitutional in Wolfe; the Commonwealth conceded appellant was entitled to resentencing. Appellant raised multiple claims (jury unanimity/polling ambiguity, prior-bad-acts evidence, cross-examination limits, juror challenges, submission of expert materials to jury, sufficiency/weight of evidence, and illegal mandatory minimum).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Vasquez-Diaz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury poll ambiguity/unanimity | Polling occurred properly; any ambiguity was not raised at trial | Juror’s "Yes" answer to "agree or disagree" was ambiguous and showed non-unanimity | Waived — defendant failed to seek clarification or object immediately; claim forfeited |
| Admission of prior acts (watching C.P. shower/sleep) under Rule 404(b) | Evidence showed common scheme/plan (same house, victims sisters, timing, vulnerable post-shower positions) and bolstered victim credibility | Acts only showed voyeurism and were not a distinctive signature of rape | No abuse of discretion — admissible to show common plan and continuity of sexual misconduct |
| Cross-examination about C.P.'s drug use | Evidence of drug use irrelevant to events and not shown to affect credibility at time of events | Appellant sought to impeach C.P. with alleged drug use | Properly excluded — drug use at unrelated times was irrelevant and would impermissibly besmirch character |
| Juror challenges/for-cause removal and acceptance | Court has discretion; challenge for cause rests on juror answers/demeanor | Appellant argued several jurors should have been struck (including juror who previously litigated with judge) | Mostly waived/forfeited where defendant accepted jurors or failed to exercise peremptory strikes; no palpable abuse of discretion |
| Submission of expert report to jury during deliberations | Parties and court jointly agreed to provide a redacted expert report; not a transcript | Appellant argued jurors impermissibly received a transcript of testimony | No error — jury was given a agreed redacted expert report (defense consented) |
| Sufficiency and weight of evidence (lack of physical trauma/date issues) | Victim’s testimony alone can establish rape; lack of trauma is not dispositive; date need only be fixed with reasonable certainty for child victims | Argued physical impossibility due to no trauma and alibi evidence about date/place | Conviction supported: sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion on weight claim; jury credibility determinations upheld |
| Sentencing — mandatory minimum under § 9718 | Commonwealth conceded § 9718 invalidated by Wolfe; resentencing required | Appellant sought relief from mandatory minimum sentence | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because § 9718 was declared unconstitutional (Wolfe) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016) (statute imposing mandatory minimum for sexual offenses declared unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Downey, 732 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1999) (polling rule and timeliness of jury polling)
- Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (admission of other acts to show common scheme/bolster victim credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 602 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1992) (prior sexual misconduct admissible to show continuing/ escalating nature and propensity concerning same victim)
- Commonwealth v. Minerd, 753 A.2d 225 (Pa. 2000) (lack of physical trauma does not disprove rape; expert testimony permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996) (imprecision in date is tolerable in child-victim prosecutions)