Commonwealth v. Fisher
47 A.3d 155
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Kevin Fisher was convicted by jury of indecent assault of a child under 13.
- Victim T.T. was eight years old at the time of the offense (2002) and wore a t‑shirt and underwear.
- Fisher sat T.T. in a chair, instructed her to face away, and licked the backs of her legs from ankle to near the buttocks.
- T.T. testified, and her older brother corroborated witnessing the licking through a doorway.
- Trial court sentenced Fisher to 1–5 years; post‑sentence motion denied by operation of law; direct appeal followed post‑PCRA reinstatement and nunc pro tunc rights.
- Court addresses sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and discretionary aspects of sentencing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient for indecent assault | Fisher argues lack of evidence touching sexual parts. | Capable of sexual contact only with genitalia/explicit parts was required. | Evidence sufficient to prove indecent contact. |
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Weight of the evidence favored Fisher; no contact with intimate parts. | Credible testimony supported guilt. | No weight issue; verdict not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Whether the sentencing departed from guidelines without justification | Sentence manifestly unreasonable and excessive. | Discretionary challenge; no substantial question raised. | No substantial question; no review of the sentencing merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Capo, 727 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 1999) (broad interpretation of indecent contact beyond genitalia allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review and light most favorable to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2004) (substantial question requirements for discretionary review)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (2119(f) statement and substantial question rule)
- Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2005) (substantial question standard in sentencing review)
- Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251 (Pa. Super. 2003) (test for substantial question in discretionary sentencing)