Com. v. Yan, Y.
1639 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- On Sept. 20, 2014, Yufan Yan entered M.C.’s apartment uninvited, carried her to a bedroom, pushed her onto a bed, and touched her breasts under her bra while she said "no" and struggled. Photographs showed bruising on the victim’s wrist/forearm.
- Police interviewed the victim, photographed injuries, and Detective Mark Hovan later called and arranged an in-person interview with Yan; portions of interviews were played at trial.
- A jury convicted Yan of indecent assault and simple assault and acquitted him of attempted rape and unlawful restraint.
- Sentencing (Aug. 26, 2016) imposed fines, intermediate punishment (including restrictive work release, house arrest, and probation); Yan was ordered to register as a sexual offender for 15 years and later had his sentence modified to 3–6 months’ incarceration (with work release) and 18 months’ probation, concurrent for both counts.
- Yan appealed raising claims about admission of pre-arrest telephone statements, a detective’s alleged opinion that he believed the victim, prosecution nondisclosure of the victim’s call to a friend before 911, and the trial court’s refusal to give missing-witness/missing-evidence jury instructions. Procedural objections under Pa.R.A.P. 1925 were initially waived but later cured by remand; the trial court and Superior Court addressed the substantive claims on the merits or as waived where preservation was lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admission of Yan’s pre-arrest telephone statements to Det. Hovan (self‑incrimination) | Yan contends his phone remarks amounted to an invocation of the right against self-incrimination and were inadmissible | Detective’s testimony merely described investigative steps and scheduling of an in-person interview; statements did not show refusal to answer and were not used to imply guilt | Admissible; no Article I, §9 violation — testimony was foundational and not used as substantive evidence of guilt |
| 2) Mistrial based on Det. Hovan saying “I believed her” (opinion testimony) | Yan argues the detective’s comment expressed belief in the victim and improperly suggested Yan’s guilt, warranting mistrial | Comment explained why the officer did not record the victim; limited, elicited by defense, and promptly cured by a curative instruction | No mistrial; statement was not prejudicial and curative instruction dispelled harm |
| 3) Mistrial for prosecution’s alleged failure to disclose victim’s call to a friend before 911 | Yan claims surprise discovery of the victim’s pre-911 phone call warranted a mistrial or was Brady material | The call was not material Brady material; defense was able to cross-examine and the Commonwealth agreed not to play the 911 tape; any prejudice was de minimis | Denied — no Brady violation and no substantial prejudice; Commonwealth’s compromise mitigated issue |
| 4) Missing-witness instruction for the unnamed friend the victim called | Yan requested a missing-witness charge to permit adverse inference from the friend’s absence | Trial court declined but permitted cross-examination about the delay; defense did not preserve a specific objection per Rule/Pressley | Waived for failure to properly preserve; alternative, court would have rejected instruction as unwarranted |
| 5) Missing-evidence instruction re: telephone records | Yan sought a charge about Commonwealth’s failure to produce phone records | Defense did not preserve the objection or point to record; trial court found no prejudice and no basis for required instruction | Waived under preservation rules; assertedly without merit even if reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007) (abuse of discretion does not mean mere disagreement)
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014) (pre-arrest silence may be protected where defendant affirmatively refuses to cooperate)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 104 A.3d 511 (Pa. 2014) (mere reference to silence may not violate constitutional rights if not used to imply guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 957 A.2d 311 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for granting mistrial; curative instructions often suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (mistrial standard and prejudicial impact analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 649 A.2d 435 (Pa. 1994) (police belief that defendant is suspect does not amount to improper opinion of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2005) (preservation rules for jury instruction challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing jury charges)