Com. v. Yerger, W.
Com. v. Yerger, W. No. 967 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- Warren E. Yerger was convicted by a jury of 158 counts arising from decades-long sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of four children in his care (1989–2012) across four Pennsylvania counties.
- Crimes included rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, incest, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of children, attempts, and related conspiracies.
- Commonwealth introduced testimony about Yerger’s physical abuse of family members and cruelty to animals; Yerger objected only to the animal-abuse evidence as inadmissible propensity evidence under Pa. R. Evid. 404(b).
- Jury convicted on December 22, 2014; court found Yerger a sexually violent predator and imposed an aggregate sentence of 339 to 690 years’ incarceration on June 17, 2015.
- Yerger appealed arguing (1) improper admission of animal-abuse evidence and (2) excessive sentence; trial court gave limiting instruction on the abuse evidence and explained sentencing rationale (public protection, gravity of offenses, lack of remorse).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Yerger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of animal-abuse evidence | Evidence was relevant as res gestae/context to explain victims’ delayed reporting and fear; probative value outweighed prejudice | Evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial propensity evidence barred by Pa. R. Evid. 404(b) | Court affirmed admission: animal-abuse testimony admissible to show effect on victims and context; limiting instruction given and prejudice outweighed by probative value |
| Excessiveness of aggregate sentence (339–690 yrs) | Sentence justified by the scope, duration, and severity of systematic abuse, harm to victims, public protection, and within guideline ranges | Sentence is effectively a "virtual life" sentence and excessive relative to criminal conduct | Court declined to review discretionary-sentencing claim for procedural Rule 2119(f) defect but—on the merits—held no substantial question; sentence not an abuse of discretion given gravity and scope of offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review and evidentiary discretion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007) (other-crimes evidence admissible to show context/res gestae and reasons for delayed reporting)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jurors presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (aggregate consecutive sentencing may raise a substantial question if sentence appears excessive based on conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526 (Pa. Super. 2011) (very long aggregate sentences upheld where convictions reflect extensive, systematic sexual abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Treadway, 104 A.3d 597 (Pa. Super. 2014) (review of aggregate sentence in context of prolonged sexual abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Gambal, 561 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1989) (appellate enforcement of procedural briefing defects such as Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f))
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (sentencing must consider public protection, gravity of offense, and rehabilitative needs)