Com. v. Williams, G.
2022 Pa. Super. 50
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Appellant George Williams was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a child (offenses occurred when the victim was about 10; she testified at trial at age 12). Alleged abuse occurred while family lived in Appellant's apartment; disclosure to family/police occurred months after moving out.
- The victim gave inconsistent, incomplete pretrial statements (police/PCA interviews) and testified she might lie under direction; there was no physical/forensic corroboration. Appellant denied wrongdoing.
- A PCA forensic interview video was played at trial; PCA manager Colleen Getz (9 years at PCA; >2,300 interviews) testified about PCA procedures. She was not qualified as an expert.
- On redirect, without expert qualification, Getz testified (based on her experience) that it is common for child victims to under-disclose sexual abuse (disclose in stages, deny pieces, then disclose more). Defense objected; the court overruled.
- The jury convicted; the Superior Court held admission of Getz’s opinion constituted expert testimony requiring qualification under Pa.R.E. 702 and 42 Pa.C.S. §5920 (and per Commonwealth v. Jones) and that the court abused discretion by admitting it without qualifying her — vacating the sentence and remanding for a new trial. The court affirmed denial of a prompt-complaint jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by permitting PCA supervisor to testify (on redirect) that child victims commonly under-disclose without qualifying her as an expert | Getz's statements were lay perceptions of her interviews, not expert opinion; testimony was permissible and not barred | Testimony was expert opinion about victim behavior requiring qualification under Pa.R.E. 702 and §5920 (per Jones); admission without qualification was error | Admission was expert testimony; court abused discretion by allowing it without qualifying Getz as an expert; error was not harmless — new trial required |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing a prompt-complaint jury instruction | Prompt-complaint instruction unnecessary given victim’s age/relationship to defendant and fear; trial court properly exercised discretion | Delay and inconsistencies supported instruction to allow jury to infer fabrication | Denial of prompt-complaint instruction was within trial court’s discretion; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 240 A.3d 881 (Pa. 2020) (testimony about typical child-victim responses to sexual abuse based on training/experience is expert testimony; §5920 governs such testimony)
- Commonwealth v. T.B., 232 A.3d 915 (Pa. Super. 2020) (distinguished: factual explanation of interview/reporting procedures may be non-expert)
- Commonwealth v. Snoke, 580 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1990) (prompt-complaint instruction not required where victim is a minor, trusted perpetrator, or lacked reason to appreciate misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Snyder, 251 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2021) (prompt-complaint instruction is a discretionary, case-by-case inquiry considering victim age, relationship, and nature of assault)
- Commonwealth v. Duffey, 548 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 1988) (expert testimony is permitted when subject matter is beyond average layperson and will aid the trier of fact)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 209 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2019) (harmless-error framework for erroneously admitted evidence)