Commonwealth v. Leak
22 A.3d 1036
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Leak was convicted of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, aggravated indecent assault, unlawful restraint, and possession of an instrument of crime, and was sentenced as a sexually violent predator to 10–20 years’ incarceration followed by 30 years’ probation.
- The offenses occurred August 28, 2005, at 3412 Kensington Ave., where Leak assaulted Martin and Devlin, including threats with a knife, repeated oral sex, burning her neck, and later anal and vaginal penetration; DNA evidence linked Leak to semen on Martin’s shirt.
- The Commonwealth withdrew the initial charges February 14, 2006 due to Martin’s illness and incarceration in Georgia; Leak was taken into federal custody for a probation violation; a detainer was filed July 3, 2006; Leak was released July 27, 2006 and re-arrested July 29, 2006.
- Leak argued IAD Article IV required trial within 120 days of release, citing Davis; the record shows the Commonwealth did not file a custody request, so Article IV was not triggered; Article III argument was waived for failure to raise it in the Rule 1925(b) statement.
- Rule 600(G) challenge: the trial court properly determined the 365-day period did not mandate dismissal given due diligence and circumstances beyond the Commonwealth’s control; Meadius and Surovcik distinguish delays caused by lack of due diligence from delays attributable to factors beyond the Commonwealth’s control.
- Rule 500 videotaped preservation: the Commonwealth failed to file a Rule 500 motion and order, but Leak was aware of the videotaping; under Bazemore, absence of Rule 500 compliance did not result in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, so the videotaped testimony was admissible; hospital records were properly addressed and the issue was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAD Article IV applicability and 120-day trial requirement | Leak—Davis triggers 120-day rule | Commonwealth did not file custody request; not triggered | Article IV not triggered; no dismissal |
| IAD Article III applicability and 180-day requirement | Leak—Article III argument not waived | Waived for not raised in Rule 1925(b) | Waived Article III claim |
| Rule 600(G) dismissal for speedy trial violation | August 27, 2005 arrest/start of Rule 600 period | Withdrawal due to factors beyond Commonwealth’s control; due diligence shown | No abuse; court acted within discretion; no dismissal |
| Admission of Martin’s videotaped testimony under Rule 500 | Commonwealth violated Rule 500 procedures and discovery rights | No prejudice; notice given; full cross-examination occurred; preservation valid | Admissible despite noncompliance; no miscarriage of justice |
| Admission of Martin’s Temple hospital records | Records improperly admitted and prejudicial | Waived, no basis shown for prejudice; proper context established | Waived argument; records admissible; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 567 Pa. 135 (2001) (IAD Article IV applicability when detainer not paired with custody request)
- Commonwealth v. Meadius, 582 Pa. 174 (2005) (Rule 600 run date due to factors beyond Commonwealth’s control; withdrawal may be excused with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Surovcik, 933 A.2d 651 (Pa.Super.2007) (Due diligence required; delays due to circumstances beyond control warrant dismissal if not pursued diligently)
- Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 531 Pa. 582 (1992) (Full and fair opportunity to cross-examine governs admissibility of prior testimony; miscarriage of justice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47 (2002) (Impeachment value of prior statements; cross-examination importance)
- Commonwealth v. Allshouse, 604 Pa. 61 (2009) (Confrontation and admissibility of prior testimony where witness unavailable)