Commonwealth v. Prisk
13 A.3d 526
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Prisk was convicted at a jury trial of 314 offenses, including multiple counts of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and indecent assault, based on years of abuse of his stepdaughter from 2001 to 2007.
- Victim, starting at age ten, endured escalating abuse, including forced nudity, sexual acts, and violent physical punishments when disobedient.
- In 2006 Prisk participated in a prison work-release program, continuing contact with Victim; abuse resumed until Victim reported it in 2007.
- Police obtained a recording of a March 11, 2008 jailhouse visit between Victim and Prisk without a Court of Common Pleas order to intercept.
- A suppression motion to exclude the recording under the Wiretap Act was denied by the suppression court on January 16, 2009.
- Prisk was sentenced on April 9, 2010 to an aggregate term of 633 to 1500 years’ imprisonment; post-sentence motions were denied and an appeal ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of in-prison conversation | Prisk contends the recording occurred in his home (prison visitation room) and required a prior in-home order. | Prisk argues he had a reasonable privacy expectation in the visitation room and home-like setting. | Court upheld denial of suppression; no reasonable expectation of privacy in visitation room. |
| Aggregate sentence excessive | Prisk asserts the aggregate term is manifestly excessive given the number of offenses and life expectancy considerations. | State argues discretionary sentencing allowed; challenge to order of consecutive sentences is not per se substantial. | Aggregate sentence not excessive; appellate review affirmed the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa.Super.2008) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; bound by underlying facts)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 631 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super.1993) (privacy expectations under Wiretap Act; focus on reasonable expectation)
- Commonwealth v. Brion, 652 A.2d 287 (Pa.1994) (oral communication privacy; explicit expectation required)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 1098-1099 (Pa.Super.2007) (totality of circumstances for reasonableness of privacy expectation)
- Commonwealth v. Viall, 890 A.2d 419 (Pa.Super.2005) (balancing privacy expectations in determining reasonable privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581 (Pa.Super.2010) (consecutive-sentencing review; aggregate impact on life terms)
- Commonwealth v. Hoag, 665 A.2d 1212 (Pa.Super.1995) (consecutive vs concurrent sentencing discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442 (Pa.Super.2006) (discretionary aspects of sentencing; standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530 (Pa.Super.2004) (how to articulate substantial question under Rule 2119(f))
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa.Super.2000) (articulation of substantial question under discretionary review)