Com. v. Wunner, W., Com. v. Wunner, W. No. 817 MDA 2016

In April 2014 William Wunner began living with his girlfriend A.W. and her three children; the victim was five years old. Wunner babysat the children while A.W. worked and moved out in May 2014. The victim disclosed alleged sexual abuse by Wunner to her grandmother on June 22, 2014.
On December 9, 2014 the Commonwealth charged Wunner with rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, two counts of aggravated indecent assault, endangering the welfare of a child, corruption of minors, indecent assault, and indecent exposure.
A jury convicted Wunner on all counts on January 20, 2016. On April 15, 2016 the court imposed an aggregate 24 to 48 year prison sentence. Wunner appealed.
On appeal Wunner argued (1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the victim’s grandfather was a registered sex offender who had contact with the victim, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and aggravated indecent assault.
The trial court excluded the proffered evidence as irrelevant because the victim denied unsupervised contact with her grandfather and there was no evidence of inappropriate contact between them. The court also deemed Wunner’s sufficiency claim waived for lack of specificity in his Rule 1925(b) statement but addressed the merits and found the evidence sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Wunner)	Held
Admissibility of evidence that victim had contact with a registered sex offender	Evidence of alternative perpetrator is speculative and not necessary; probative value low	Evidence would support alternative perpetrator theory and bolster defense	Trial court did not err: evidence excluded as irrelevant and lacking probative value
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (rape of a child, IDSI, aggravated indecent assault)	Victim’s testimony alone can suffice; medical and corroborating testimony supported penetration and timeline	Evidence was vague, lacked physical proof, no identifying mark testimony; timeframe unspecified	Claim waived for lack of specificity; alternatively, evidence was sufficient when viewed in favor of Commonwealth

Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review and relevancy/prejudice balancing for admissibility)
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement to preserve sufficiency claims)
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same on preservation/specificity)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (de novo standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Ansell, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency test: view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 141 A.3d 547 (Pa. Super. 2016) (fact-finder may believe all, part, or none of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 646 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 1994) (victim testimony need not be corroborated in sexual-offense prosecutions)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (uncorroborated complainant testimony sufficient to convict)
Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (penetration however slight suffices for sexual offenses)