Commonwealth v. Ivy
146 A.3d 241
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Glavin Justan Ivy was charged with rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault for an alleged sexual assault of A.C. on Nov. 18–19, 2014; A.C. obtained a PFA and Ivy was later convicted of violating it.
- The Commonwealth sought to admit prior-bad-act evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b): testimony/docs from C.D. and M.F. about prior abusive conduct, and certified copies of multiple PFA/restraining orders and convictions.
- The trial court granted the Commonwealth leave to introduce testimony and some communications from C.D., but excluded certified copies of PFA orders, violations, and certain convictions as unduly prejudicial.
- The Commonwealth appealed the pretrial order (certifying it substantially handicapped the prosecution); Ivy filed a cross-appeal challenging admission of prior-bad-act evidence.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court erred by excluding certified copies of A.C.’s, C.D.’s, and M.F.’s PFA/restraining orders and A.C.’s PFA-violation, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The Superior Court quashed Ivy’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction (pretrial, non-final order; defendant may not cross-appeal interlocutory rulings denying exclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ivy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of A.C.’s certified PFA order and certified violation under Pa.R.E. 404(b) (res gestae / consciousness of guilt) | The PFA and violation are part of the history of the case and show consciousness of guilt and motive; probative value outweighs prejudice | The documents are unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded under Rule 403/404(b) | Reversed trial court’s exclusion: certified PFA and violation admissible; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
| Admissibility of C.D.’s and M.F.’s PFA/restraining orders and violations to show common scheme, plan, and to corroborate victim (and rebut consent) | Prior orders and violations show a common scheme/plan and similar predatory conduct; admissible under common-scheme exception to Rule 404(b) | Prior orders only show bad character and are unfairly prejudicial | Reversed trial court’s exclusion of certified orders (admissible under common-scheme/res gestae theory); trial court failed to substantiate prejudice finding |
| Whether defendant may cross-appeal the pretrial evidentiary rulings | N/A (Commonwealth is appellant) | Cross-appeal permissible to challenge admission of prior-bad-act evidence | Cross-appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction: defendant cannot appeal interlocutory pretrial order denying exclusion; remedy is on direct appeal after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa. 2015) (res gestae exception admits evidence forming part of the history/natural development of the case)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (PFA petitions admissible to show continual nature of abuse and motive/intent)
- Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (evidence showing attempt to silence or eliminate a witness can demonstrate consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Elliot, 700 A.2d 1243 (Pa. 1997) (prior sexual assaults with marked similarities admissible under common-scheme exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (trial court need not sanitize trials of relevant unpleasant facts that form part of the history)
- Commonwealth v. Slaton, 556 A.2d 1343 (Pa. Super. 1989) (criminal defendant may not cross-appeal pretrial suppression/evidentiary rulings; interlocutory defendant appeals generally quashed)
- Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 190 A.2d 304 (Pa. 1963) (denial of suppression does not deprive defendant of appellate review at trial; supports restriction on interlocutory defendant appeals)