Commonwealth v. Page
59 A.3d 1118
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant, William Page, was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated indecent assault of a child, and false reports to law enforcement; sentenced to life without parole for the murder.
- Two related cases involving X.H. and Victim were joined for trial after a motion by the Commonwealth; severance was granted then reconsidered and ultimately denied.
- Evidence included physical items from the dungeon, blood evidence, and an extensive police interrogation timeline with multiple Miranda warnings.
- X.H., a minor, testified after a competency hearing; the defense challenged taint from prior interviews and alleged coaching by prosecution.
- Dr. Mary Carrasco testified as an expert on pediatric sexual abuse; the defense challenged her relevance and methodology, given Victim’s death context.
- Appellant filed a motion to strike a transcript from the certified record, which this court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of X.H. as a trial witness | X.H. lacked independent recollection and was tainted by questioning. | X.H. was incompetent due to taint and truth-telling capacity. | X.H. competent; no reversible taint found. |
| Suppression of statements obtained in violation of Miranda | Appellant did not knowingly and intelligently waive rights after invoking counsel. | Appellant initiated contact and waived rights; statements admissible. | Waiver valid; statements properly admitted; no reversal warranted. |
| Severity of joinder and severance of X.H. and Victim charges | Joinder prejudicial; should have severed to avoid prejudice. | Joinder necessary to tell the complete story; no undue prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; joinder proper; no reversal for severance. |
| Admission of Dr. Carrasco as an expert | Carrasco lacked relevant expertise on the dead body’s condition; unreliable. | Carrasco possessed appropriate pediatric-sexual-abuse expertise under Rule 702. | Admission proper; expert testimony supported by qualifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pena, 31 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2011) (competency test for a child witness with taint considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 772 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 2001) (suppression standard and role of appellate review of suppression orders)
- Commonwealth v. Garvin, 50 A.3d 694 (Pa. Super. 2012) (volunteered statements and custodial interrogation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 53 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2012) (voluntary and knowing waiver of rights; totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Szakal, 50 A.3d 210 (Pa. Super. 2012) (expert admissibility under Rule 702 framework)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 980 A.2d 647 (Pa. Super. 2009) (taint considerations for minor witnesses with age-related relevance)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (joinder of related offenses; the same-story justification)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 939 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 2007) (taint from interview techniques; consistency with detectives' testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 855 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2004) (spontaneous statements in custodial settings and when warnings not required)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 42 A.3d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2012) (totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for waiver)