195 A.3d 291
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- In Fall 2015, Darold Palmore (student) met K.H. (victim) and about two weeks later allegedly forced sexual contact in her dorm room; victim objected. Palmore was charged with indecent assault, disorderly conduct, and harassment.
- Palmore sought to admit evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct (an alleged oral sex act with Palmore’s roommate) and communications he had with the victim’s boyfriend, arguing the victim had motive to fabricate reports.
- The trial court conducted the in camera hearing required by the Rape Shield statute and excluded the prior-sex evidence as more prejudicial than probative.
- A jury convicted Palmore; he was later designated an SVP and sentenced to an aggregate 228–729 days. Palmore appealed, arguing principally that exclusion of the prior-sex evidence violated his Confrontation Clause right to attack witness credibility.
- The Superior Court concluded the excluded evidence was relevant to motive/credibility, that the trial court’s reasons were unsupported by the record, and that exclusion violated the Confrontation Clause. The conviction was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court erred in barring testimony about victim’s prior sexual conduct (conversation/incident with roommate) | Palmore: evidence shows victim had motive to fabricate and attacked her credibility; Rape Shield cannot exclude bias evidence | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: excluded under Rape Shield as more prejudicial than probative | Reversed: exclusion violated Confrontation Clause; evidence was relevant and probative outweighing unfair prejudice |
| 2. Whether exclusion of Victim’s trial-time statements violated confrontation rights | Palmore: exclusion prevented adequate confrontation and impeachment | Commonwealth: limiting questions permissible under Rape Shield balancing | Reversed as to core impeachment evidence; Confrontation Clause rights violated by exclusion |
| 3. Whether trial court erred by failing to issue subpoena duces tecum to Clarion University, hindering defense | Palmore: subpoena necessary to assemble exculpatory evidence | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: subpoena not ordered; issue raised but not central to decision | Not decided on merits — court declined to reach remaining issues because reversal on Rape Shield claim warranted new trial |
| 4. Whether SVP designation was erroneous absent jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt | Palmore: designation requires jury finding; legality challenge | Commonwealth: SVP designation upheld by trial court findings | Not addressed substantively — court declined to reach remaining issues since remedy is new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fernsler, 715 A.2d 435 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Rape Shield must yield where evidence shows victim motive to fabricate and is genuinely exculpatory)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 606 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. 1992) (timing of complaint and prior accusations can be critical defense evidence; probative value may outweigh prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Eck, 605 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 1992) (Rape Shield balancing: probative value need only outweigh risk of unfair prejudice; prejudice means inflaming jurors)
- Commonwealth v. Guy, 686 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1996) (distinguishes impeachment use from improper character/consent proof; prior sexual conduct with third-party inadmissible to prove consent)