Com. v. Winter, B.
3545 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Brian Charles Winter was convicted of two counts each of corruption of minors (18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(ii)) and indecent assault of a person under 16 (18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(8)) following a jury trial in Delaware County.
- The convictions arose from allegations by two female minors about a single night; both victims testified the conduct was an isolated event.
- Winter challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence (arguing lack of a "course of conduct" for corruption charges and inconsistent victim testimony for indecent assault).
- Winter sought to have one victim (K.J.) undergo an independent psychiatric evaluation by his expert to challenge competency and to use expert impeachment evidence; the trial court denied the request.
- Winter also sought admission of social-media (Facebook) posts of victim M.M. to impeach her credibility; the trial court excluded the material.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning on sufficiency, weight, exclusion of expert examination, and exclusion of social-media evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for corruption of minors (course of conduct) | Commonwealth: evidence supports each element, including course of conduct as charged | Winter: victims said events were isolated, so statute’s "course of conduct" element not met | Court: affirmed—trial court correctly found evidence sufficient for convictions under §6301(a)(1)(ii) |
| Weight of evidence for indecent assault (conflicting testimony) | Commonwealth: jury resolved inconsistencies; evidence supported convictions | Winter: inconsistent trial and prior statements made verdict against weight of evidence | Court: affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion in rejecting weight claim |
| Denial of independent psychiatric exam of victim K.J. | Winter: expert review and examination was necessary to show incompetence and impeachment value | Commonwealth/Trial court: limitation/denial was proper under applicable law and procedure | Court: affirmed—trial court acted within discretion; denial did not entitle Winter to relief |
| Exclusion of M.M.’s Facebook posts | Winter: posts were highly probative of credibility and not unfairly prejudicial | Commonwealth/Trial court: posts were properly excluded under evidentiary rules | Court: affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the social-media evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review standard; review in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and deference for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 722 A.2d 195 (Pa. Super. 1998) (relating sufficiency findings to weight analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Birdseye, 637 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. 1994) (distinguishing sufficiency and weight claims)