Commonwealth v. Lomax
8 A.3d 1264
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Lomax was convicted of rape of a child, indecent assault, and corruption of minors for sexual acts with his eleven-year-old niece M.L. in August 2008.
- Before trial, the court admitted evidence of a separate October 2007 incident in which Lomax rubbed against M.L.; the court found the prior act admissible due to the familial relationship and context in the home.
- At trial, M.L. testified Lomax kissed her, removed clothing, and engaged in vaginal intercourse and oral sex with her; he allegedly instructed her not to tell anyone.
- D.L., M.L.’s aunt, corroborated the October 2007 incident, describing Lomax following M.L. and standing very close; her testimony supported a pattern of conduct.
- The jury found Lomax guilty on all counts; he argued the 2007 evidence should have been excluded and that the rape of a child and indecent assault should merge for sentencing.
- The Superior Court held the October 2007 evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) and, on merger, vacated the indecent assault sentence while affirming the overall judgment and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 similar-acts evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). | Lomax contends the 2007 act had insufficient similarity and was too remote in time, risking prejudice. | Commonwealth asserts the prior act showed a continuing, escalating pattern and was probative given the familial relation and home setting. | Admissible; probative of continuing pattern and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Whether rape of a child and indecent assault merge for sentencing. | The offenses arise from the same act with overlapping elements; indecent assault should merge into rape of a child. | Lomax argues no improper merge or illegal sentence under the statutory framework; severest offense should govern. | They merge; indecent assault vacated; rape of a child stands as the higher offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; limited scope when reason given)
- Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 602 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1992) (prior uncharged sexual misconduct admissible to show continuing pattern)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2008) (merger test for sentencing: elements and single set of facts)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 815 (Pa. 2006) (statutory elements comparison for merger analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 920 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. 2007) (plenary review of legality-of-sentence; timing considerations)