Com. v. Wilbur, L.
592 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 4, 2017Background
- Victim (C.M.) went with friends to parties, consumed alcohol and marijuana, and fell asleep in Appellant’s car around 6:00 a.m.; she had no memory of events between ~6:00–10:00 a.m.
- Upon waking, C.M. found her clothing disarranged, was sore, smelled differently, and her phone was missing; she reported to her friend N.W. that “something is wrong.”
- N.W. answered Appellant’s phone call; Appellant admitted to having had sexual intercourse with C.M. and said he “should have stopped” when she “just lay there.”
- C.M. underwent a sexual assault exam (no external trauma), and Appellant gave a videotaped police statement admitting to kissing and having oral and vaginal intercourse with C.M., claiming she was asleep and intermittently moved/opened her eyes.
- A jury convicted Appellant of rape of an unconscious person (18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(3)); he was sentenced to 60–120 months’ imprisonment plus 60 months’ probation.
- Appellant appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and the Superior Court independently reviewed the record before affirming the conviction and permitting counsel to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape of an unconscious person | Commonwealth: evidence (victim’s memory gap, physical signs, Appellant’s admissions) proves unconsciousness/non-consent | Wilbur: victim’s intoxication level and memory gaps do not prove she was unconscious — intercourse may have been consensual | Court: Evidence sufficient; intermittent or partial unconsciousness satisfies statute; jury reasonably credited victim and Appellant’s admissions supported conviction |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: jury verdict was reasonable based on testimony and admissions | Wilbur: victim’s inconsistent account about substances made her testimony incredible; verdict shocks conscience | Court: Trial court’s credibility determinations stand; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to warrant new trial |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing remark) | Commonwealth: closing argument remark harmless | Wilbur: prosecutor’s reference to "a fixed line" crossed line | Court: Issue waived for failure to object at trial; not considered on appeal |
| Counsel withdrawal under Anders/Santiago | N/A | Counsel sought to withdraw, asserting appeal frivolous | Court: Anders brief met Santiago requirements; granted counsel leave to withdraw after independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Diggs v. Commonwealth, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Erney v. Commonwealth, 698 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1997) (intermittent unconsciousness can satisfy rape statute)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for counsel’s Anders brief)