Com. v. Windon, D., Jr., 498 MDA 2021

Victim (age 14) alleged uncle Donald E. Windon raped her in his parents’ (her grandparents’) home; she later wrote a diary entry and performed an internet search about what to do if raped.
Victim went to the hospital two days later for a sexual-assault exam; no male DNA on vaginal swabs, but sperm matching Windon was found on the bed comforter.
During opening, defense counsel began to say the victim asked for a “morning-after pill” days earlier; Commonwealth objected under Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law (RSL).
Defense counsel did not file the RSL written pretrial motion required by statute, but the trial court held an in-camera hearing and excluded evidence about the alleged request for a morning-after pill as more prejudicial than probative.
Jury convicted Windon of multiple sexual offenses; Windon later sought PCRA relief arguing trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to pierce the RSL.
The PCRA court denied relief; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Windon failed to show merit to his underlying claim or prejudice from counsel’s omission.

Issue	Windon’s Argument	Commonwealth’s Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file the written RSL motion to admit evidence that the victim sought a morning-after pill, which defense says would show motive to fabricate	Windon: Evidence of the morning-after pill request would show motive/bias and help his defense; counsel’s failure to file the required RSL motion lacked reasonable basis and prejudiced him	Commonwealth: Trial court properly excluded the evidence after in-camera hearing because its prejudicial effect (suggesting prior sexual activity and controversial abortion-related implications) outweighed speculative probative value; exclusion was appropriate and defense had other means to challenge credibility	Superior Court: Affirmed PCRA denial — Windon failed to prove merit and prejudice under ineffective-assistance test; trial court reasonably found probative value minimal and prejudice substantial

Commonwealth v. Rogers, 250 A.3d 1209 (Pa. 2021) (describes Rape Shield Law’s purpose and the balance between victim privacy and defendant’s right to present evidence)
Commonwealth v. Black, 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. 1985) (en banc) (sets factors for in-camera RSL hearing: relevance to bias/motive, probative value vs. prejudice, and alternative means)
Commonwealth v. Burns, 968 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2009) (en banc) (emphasizes requirement to file written RSL motion and offer proof at trial to preserve review)
Commonwealth v. Weber, 701 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1997) (holds RSL applies to evidence related to abortion/morning-after pill as implicating prior sexual conduct)
Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (defines prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims: reasonable probability of different result)
Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2015) (sets three-prong test for ineffectiveness: merit, no reasonable basis, actual prejudice)