Commonwealth v. Conte
198 A.3d 1169
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- In January 2016, M.C.B. (then 29) reported to police that her father, John Conte, had sexually assaulted her repeatedly between ages ~4–8; a criminal complaint charged Conte with multiple felonies (rape, IDSI, aggravated indecent assault) and misdemeanors including Endangering the Welfare of Children (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304).
- Jury trial in March 2017 resulted in acquittals on most serious sexual-offense counts but a conviction on a single count of Endangering the Welfare of Children.
- Pre-sentence investigation prepared; at sentencing the court heard victim impact testimony describing long-term trauma, and multiple defense witnesses urged probation and mitigation (family support, character testimony).
- The trial court sentenced Conte to the statutory maximum for the misdemeanor count (30–60 months), finding aggravating factors (serious victim impact, position of trust, lack of remorse, family division) and departing above guideline range.
- Conte appealed, challenging (1) discretionary aspects of the sentence as excessive and contrary to the jury’s verdict, and (2) admission of prior-bad-acts testimony (Pa.R.E. 404(b)) from other alleged victims (notably T.F.). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary aspects of sentence | Commonwealth: sentence justified by victim impact, protection of public, rehabilitative needs | Conte: sentence excessive; jury acquitted him of major charges and convicted only of a misdemeanor; court improperly relied on testimony tied to acquitted charges | Affirmed — court properly considered §9721(b) factors, PSI, demeanor, victim impact and did not abuse discretion in departing above guideline |
| Reliance on testimony of victim and family at sentencing | Commonwealth: relevant to gravity/impact on victim and community | Conte: court ignored mitigating testimony and gave undue weight to prosecution witnesses; inconsistent with jury acquittals | Affirmed — sentencing judge may rely on trial observations, PSI, and victim impact; departure reasoned and individualized |
| Admission of prior-bad-acts (Pa.R.E. 404(b)) testimony (T.F.) | Commonwealth: admissible to rebut defense, show scheme/plan, identity, and to explain environment; offered in rebuttal | Conte: testimony was inflammatory, prejudicial, low probative value, and served only to show bad character/propensity | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible for limited purposes, jury instructed, probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Request for taint hearing / competency testing of victim & admission of other witnesses (A.L.) | Commonwealth: evidence/witnesses properly admitted | Conte: trial court erred by denying taint hearing and admitting other-witness testimony | Waived on appeal — issues not briefed; Superior Court declined to address them |
Key Cases Cited
- Tirado v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (preservation requirement for discretionary-sentencing claims)
- Bonds v. Commonwealth, 890 A.2d 414 (Pa. Super. 2005) (review of Rule 2119(f) noncompliance and appellate consideration)
- Devers v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption sentencing court considered PSI and relevant defendant information)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (appellate unreasonableness review for sentences outside guidelines)
- Fullin v. Commonwealth, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (presumption sentencing judge aware of PSI material and considered mitigating factors)
- Zirkle v. Commonwealth, 107 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)