Commonwealth v. Barnett
50 A.3d 176
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellant Harold L. Barnett was convicted in 2010 of unlawful contact with a minor, indecent assault, and corruption of minors for two victims (B.M. and M.W.) and sentenced to 25–50 years’ imprisonment under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2 (mandatory), with Megan’s Law not applied.
- Tender Years Statute evidence: out-of-court statements of the young victims admitted via A.M., J.W., and Detective Cornish.
- Defense challenged admissibility of the statements under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985.1, arguing insufficient indicia of reliability and that some statements were testimonial.
- Commonwealth presented rebuttal medical testimony (Dr. Charles) to counter Dr. Orland’s opinion on erectile function.
- Handwritten journal entry by B.M. (exhibit C-2) admitted to the jury during deliberations after jury requested it.
- Appellant argues the sentence under § 9718.2 is cruel and unusual punishment; the court addresses both evidentiary and constitutional issues and affirms the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Tender Years statements | Barnett contends B.M. and M.W. lacked indicia of reliability | Commonwealth argues spontaneity, consistency, lack of motive to fabricate, and corroboration support reliability | No abuse; statements admissible under Tender Years Statute |
| Rebuttal testimony by Commonwealth expert | Orland’s testimony precluded by lack of actual penetration evidence | Charles’s rebuttal properly countered Orland; within discretion to admit rebuttal evidence | Proper admission; rebuttal testimony allowed |
| Publication of B.M.’s handwritten statement to the jury | C-2 publication risks undue emphasis and prejudice | Publication was requested by jury and was not sole evidence; discretion to permit | No reversible error; court acted within its discretion |
| Constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2 as applied | Sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment given age and acquittals | Statute facially constitutional; as-applied challenge fails; proportionality not violated under current facts | Not cruel and unusual as applied; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Malloy, 579 Pa. 425, 856 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility of evidence; Tender Years analysis)
- Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Tender Years reliability factors; child witness testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Curley, 910 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Tender Years reliability framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hickman, 458 Pa. 427, 809 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1973) (rebuttal evidence limits; evidentiary discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 581 Pa. 274, 865 A.2d 761 (Pa. 2004) (rebuttal evidence standards in capital context)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 718 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Solem/Harmelin proportionality framework for sentencing)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (proportionality scrutiny—not strictly mandatory)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (three-factor proportionality test foundational guidance)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (recidivist punishment considerations)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (third-strike-like sentencing considerations)