174 A.3d 1096
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- John David Woeber was convicted (jury) of rape, sexual assault, and related offenses based on allegations by A.R. of incidents when she was 12–14 years old; sentenced April 15, 2016.
- Appellant waived a pre-sentence SVP hearing; after sentencing an SVP determination was entered July 22, 2016; appeals consolidated.
- At trial A.R. described three incidents (one at Li.’s birthday party, a bathroom groping, and a later party sexual assault); two daughters (Li. and La.) and Appellant denied the events.
- On cross-examination defense sought to impeach A.R. with an alleged prior statement to La. that "two other boys" raped A.R. at Li.’s party; prosecutor objected under rape-shield principles and the trial court sustained the objection and struck the question.
- Appellant sought a new trial based on after-discovered evidence (an alleged recantation and Appellant’s January 2013 hip surgery); trial court denied the motion in a one‑sentence order.
- Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for in camera proceedings to determine whether A.R. or La. would testify that A.R. reported "two other boys" raped her; directed trial court to evaluate admissibility under traditional evidentiary rules; upheld SVP finding if sentence reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of prior inconsistent/exculpatory statement | Trial court erroneously blocked cross-examining A.R. about alleged statement to La. that two other boys raped her, violating confrontation rights | Rape-shield and lack of proffer; defense should have filed §3104(b) motion/in‑camera proffer | Reversed: exclusion was error; confrontation right violated; vacated sentence and remanded for in camera inquiry and admissibility ruling |
| 2. SVP designation sufficiency | SVP finding not supported by clear and convincing evidence; expert diagnosis and reliance on victim’s age insufficient | Commonwealth: expert diagnosed paraphilic disorder/pedophilia and showed predatory conduct; evidence clear and convincing | Affirmed if sentence reinstated: SVP finding supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| 3. Prosecutorial vouching | Prosecutor repeatedly vouched for A.R.’s truthfulness in closing, depriving fair trial | Defense did the same; trial court sustained objection and gave curative instruction | Rejected: curative instruction adequate; no mistrial required |
| 4. New trial — after-discovered evidence | Newly discovered recantation and surgeon testimony re: hip replacement would likely change verdict and could not have been found earlier | Appellant had access/privity to witnesses and surgery facts pretrial; lacked diligence and the new evidence is not persuasive | Denial affirmed: no reasonable diligence shown; evidence not qualifying for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 638 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1994) (Rape Shield Law does not bar evidence that victim was sexually assaulted by others; relevance test explained)
- Commonwealth v. Schrader, 141 A.3d 558 (Pa. Super. 2016) (SVP determination timing affects finality of judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (SVP requires proof by clear and convincing evidence; standards for review)
- Commonwealth v. Eck, 605 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 1992) (directs in camera proceedings and record of findings where confrontation/evidence withholding challenged)
- Commonwealth v. Ruggiano, 26 A.3d 473 (Pa. 2011) (per curiam) (adopted Eck procedure where rape-shield not implicated)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (cross-examination scope and impeachment with prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Fink, 791 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2002) (prior sexual assault distinguished from victim’s sexual conduct barred by rape-shield)
- Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) (prosecutorial comment review and harmless‑error standard)