Commonwealth v. Lewis
39 A.3d 341
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Erin M. Lewis, a probation officer, supervised Jeffrey Gardner while they were romantically involved.
- Lewis released Gardner from electronic monitoring eleven days early, altering his six‑month period.
- Lewis wrote a note in Gardner’s case file misrepresenting his Atlantic City trip to conceal their relationship.
- Lewis left her probation office in February 2008; Gardner’s new supervisor learned of the relationship in March 2008.
- Gardner admitted the relationship; Lewis was charged with tampering with public records and obstructing government function in March 2008.
- A preliminary hearing occurred; Gardner claimed the spousal privilege under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5913; the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found the marriage collusive, barring the privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in applying § 5913 | Lewis argues the court read collusive/ pre‑marriage concepts into § 5913 contrary to text and canons. | Commonwealth contends the court properly addressed collusive marriage implications and allowed compelled testimony. | Error to compel testimony; harmless error. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in opening/closing | Lewis claims inflammatory remarks denied a fair trial; curative instruction warranted. | Commonwealth asserts remarks were marginal and within permissible bounds; objection sustained where appropriate. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; no new trial necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lutwak v. United States, 343 U.S. 604 (1953) (collusive marriages can defeat spousal privilege in some contexts)
- Apodaca, 522 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1975) (spousal privilege unavailable in sham marriage cases)
- Osborne v. State, 623 P.2d 784 (Alaska 1981) (pre‑marital acts treated as exceptions in some jurisdictions)
- Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2010) (statutory text controls; no estranged‑spouse exception read into § 5913)
- Peters, Peters, 213 Ga.App. 352, 444 S.E.2d 609 (1994) (spousal privilege applies where marriage exists, regardless of motive)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings (84-5), 111 F.2d 508 (9th Cir. 1985) (timing of marriage as a factor; not sole determinant of sham marriage)
- United States v. Mathis, 559 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1977) (fraudulent remarriage can bar privilege in some contexts)
- 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921, Not a case citation () (statutory interpretation framework; text‑driven)