189 A.3d 423
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Trevor and Travis Price (identical twins) were tried jointly and convicted after a bench trial of statutory sexual assault under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.1(a)(1) for sexual intercourse with a complainant under 16.
- Victim born May 5, 1998 at 8:16 a.m.; Trevor and Travis born May 5, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. and 6:50 p.m., respectively — defendants are 3 years, 364 days, and ~10–14 hours older than the victim.
- Defendants filed pretrial habeas petitions arguing the Commonwealth could not prove the statutory element that they were “four years older” than the victim; the trial court denied relief and barred the defense from arguing an age-gap interpretation to the jury.
- After denial of habeas and unsuccessful petitions for prohibition, the brothers were convicted and sentenced to 6–23 months’ imprisonment; appeals followed and were consolidated.
- The legal question centered on how to measure “four years older” (by days, by exact hours, or otherwise) and whether any ambiguity requires construing the penal statute in favor of the defendants under the rule of lenity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved element “four years older” under § 3122.1(a)(1) | Commonwealth: birth-date difference of 1,461 days satisfies “four years older” | Prices: exact times show they are 14 hours short of a full 4-year (1,461×24 hours) difference | Vacated convictions — ambiguity resolved for defendants; Commonwealth failed to meet the element |
| Proper measure of “four years older” (days vs. exact hours) | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: use days (4 years = 1,461 days) | Prices: “four years” must account for hours; they are less than 4 full years older | Court found latent ambiguity; rule of lenity favors defendants |
| Application of rule of lenity to statutory construction of age gap | Commonwealth: statute is plain, not ambiguous; no lenity needed | Prices: ambiguous in these facts; penal statute construed for accused | Court applied lenity and construed ambiguity in defendants’ favor |
| Whether defense could present jury argument about age-gap meaning | Commonwealth: trial court properly limited argument after habeas denial | Prices: exclusion violated notice and jury trial rights | Court did not reach this remaining argument because it vacated convictions on statutory construction grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, Jr., 740 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2014) (interpreting federal statute to equate 4 years with 1,461 days in age-difference context)
- Commonwealth v. Hooks, 921 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (anniversary of birth marks attaining next age; age measured from birthdate)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (statutory construction principles and deference to plain language to ascertain legislative intent)
- Sondergaard v. Comm., Dep’t of Transp., 65 A.3d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (explaining rule of lenity and strict construction of penal statutes)