Com. v. Wilson, R.
Com. v. Wilson, R. No. 1501 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Rickey Charles Wilson was charged after a 5‑year‑old (K.C.) reported being inappropriately touched by her mother's boyfriend "Rickey."
- A jury convicted Wilson of IDSI (18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(b)), aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, endangering the welfare of children, corruption of minors, and indecent exposure; acquittal on rape and withdrawal of an intimidation count followed.
- At trial, K.C. could not positively identify Wilson in court but testified about "Rickey" touching her; other witnesses (mother, grandmother, intake worker, trooper) identified Wilson as the person called "Rickey" who lived with the family and babysat K.C.
- Wilson sought to introduce reputation evidence of his peacefulness; the trial court excluded it as irrelevant to IDSI because force or violence is not an element of the offense.
- Wilson filed post‑sentence motions and appealed, arguing (1) exclusion of peacefulness character evidence, (2) verdict against the weight of the evidence, and (3) sentencing error for failing to consider rehabilitative needs.
- The Superior Court affirmed: upheld exclusion of character evidence, rejected the weight challenge, and found no abuse of discretion in sentencing after reviewing the record and the court’s on‑the‑record statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of peacefulness character evidence | Such character evidence is irrelevant because IDSI does not require proof of violence; trial court properly excluded it | Excluding reputation for peacefulness was erroneous because Commonwealth opened the door by characterizing the case as involving violence in opening and by introducing a video suggesting force | Exclusion affirmed: peacefulness not pertinent to IDSI (force not an element); waiver of new‑theory opening‑statement claim |
| Weight of the evidence (IDSI) | Victim testimony plus corroborating witness identifications and admissions supplied sufficient circumstantial evidence to support convictions | Verdict against weight because no physical evidence, delayed reporting, victim could not ID in court, other possible perpetrators, and proffered character evidence of trustworthiness | Weight claim denied: trial judge’s credibility findings and circumstantial evidence supported verdict |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Sentencing court considered PSI and statutory factors and explained reasons for consecutive standard‑range sentences | Court failed to explicitly state consideration of rehabilitative needs and thus abused discretion | No abuse: sentencing judge reviewed PSI, discussed factors (victim age, repeated acts, need for supervision) and explained choice of consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards for appellate review of weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006) (uncorroborated victim testimony can support sexual‑assault convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 27 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2011) (limits and purpose of defendant‑offered character evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lauro, 819 A.2d 100 (Pa. Super. 2003) (character evidence must relate to traits involved in the charged crime)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (where PSI is considered, court presumed awareness of defendant’s character and mitigating factors)