Commonwealth v. McClure
144 A.3d 970
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Jalene R. McClure ran a home daycare; on August 18, 2010 a five-month-old child (P.B.) suffered a fractured skull and retinal hemorrhages after being picked up from McClure’s care. Medical evidence suggested injuries consistent with shaking.
- McClure first denied anything happened; five days later (Aug. 23, 2010) she gave a written statement saying she tripped while carrying P.B. and the child hit a car seat; the statement said vomiting occurred hours after the fall.
- A jury convicted McClure of aggravated assault, simple assault, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and recklessly endangering another person; she was sentenced to an aggregate 10–20 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal McClure raised multiple evidentiary, constitutional, and sentencing/recusal claims; the Superior Court reordered and addressed nine issues, focusing on admission of divorce- and credibility-related evidence, redaction of her written statement, demonstrative evidence, and other evidentiary rulings.
- The Superior Court found that questions and testimony about McClure’s 2012 divorce and related matters were irrelevant or privileged and their admission was not harmless; it also found error in redacting portions of McClure’s written statement and in permitting testimony that opined on her credibility.
- Because the improperly admitted testimony could reasonably have contributed to the verdict, the Court vacated McClure’s judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial; several other claims were discussed but rendered moot or rejected as to the prior trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McClure) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 2012 marital/divorce evidence to show motive/stress | Evidence showed ongoing stress relevant to conduct in 2010 | Testimony about 2012 events was irrelevant, prejudicial and implicated spousal privilege | Admission was erroneous and not harmless; new trial required |
| Redaction of defendant's Aug. 23 written statement (Rule 106) | Redaction did not distort core admission | Redaction removed exculpatory/contextual language and created misleading impression | Redaction violated Pa.R.E. 106; error not harmless |
| Detective’s testimony/opinion about veracity of McClure’s statement | Officer’s opinions aided factfinding | Officer (and CYS) impermissibly vouched for credibility, invading jury’s role | Testimony expressing disbelief/credibility opinions was improper and prejudicial |
| Detective’s demonstrative reenactment of fall | Demonstration made the explanation comprehensible and probative | Demonstration did not accurately mirror defendant’s demonstration and was prejudicial | Demonstration admissible; conditions sufficiently similar and cross-examination available |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (harmless-error standard; Commonwealth bears burden of proving error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (harmless error framework)
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 718 A.2d 768 (Pa. 1998) (expert testimony may not be used to opine on witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Seese, 517 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1986) (expert opinion on credibility is improper)
- Commonwealth v. Serge, 837 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standards for demonstrative evidence and authentication)
- Pascale v. Hechinger Co. of Pa., 627 A.2d 750 (Pa. 1993) (probative value vs. prejudicial effect for demonstrative evidence)
- Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 2000) (improperly admitted testimony that may have affected verdict requires new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 476 A.2d 965 (Pa. Super. 1984) (defendant may waive invocation of counsel by initiating further communication)