Com. v. Warris, R.
Com. v. Warris, R. No. 2479 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Victim L.V., age 13, frequently visited defendant Rachel Warris’s home to socialize with her son; prior incidents included Warris exposing her breasts to L.V.
- On February 11, 2015, while watching television, L.V. testified Warris touched, bit, pulled down his pants, and orally penetrated his penis for several minutes; he reported the incident to his mother the next day.
- L.V.’s mother discovered flirtatious texts and a Facebook message from Warris to L.V., prompting confrontation and a police report.
- Warris was interviewed by police; she gave varying statements admitting some contact (biting the penis tip; at times acknowledging brief oral contact) and conceded sending texts and flashing her breasts.
- A jury convicted Warris of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault, corruption of minors, and indecent assault; the trial court sentenced her to an aggregate 15 to 33 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support sexual-offense convictions | Commonwealth: L.V.’s testimony and Warris’s admissions provide sufficient evidence to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Warris: Victim’s testimony lacked credibility; any contact was consensual or initiated by the minor; other evidence was circumstantial | Held: Evidence sufficient. Victim testimony alone can sustain sexual-offense convictions; jury credibility finding stands, convictions affirmed |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence (aggravated-range consecutive terms) | Commonwealth: Sentence was proper based on PSI, victim impact, defendant’s lack of remorse, danger to community | Warris: Court abused discretion by imposing statutory-maximum, consecutive sentences without adequately considering mitigating factors or stating reasons on record | Held: No abuse of discretion. Court considered PSI, guidelines, victim vulnerability, lack of remorse, and relevant memoranda; consecutive aggravated-range sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melvin v. Commonwealth, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sets sufficiency-of-evidence standard viewing record in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Bishop v. Commonwealth, 742 A.2d 178 (Pa. Super. 1999) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain sexual-offense convictions)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (four-part test and substantial-question framework for discretionary-sentencing challenges)
- Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. 2010) (imposing aggravated-range sentence without considering mitigating factors raises a substantial question)
- Mastromarino v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
- Dougherty v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 31 (Pa. 2004) (weight of the evidence is for the jury; appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility)