Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077

Victim S.R., 19, was attacked and raped on October 16, 2010; surveillance, prompt report to police, and a SANE exam supported her account.
Rosser was arrested minutes after the report when police matched a phone number and physical description; counsel stipulated intercourse occurred.
At the first trial defense counsel asked S.R. whether Rosser said, “I can’t see you again, we could be friends, but I have a girlfriend,” and the court sustained the Commonwealth’s objection; Rosser did not testify.
Before the second trial the Commonwealth obtained a motion in limine precluding cross-examination on that alleged statement unless defense could show a factual foundation; Rosser again did not testify or introduce supporting evidence.
Rosser was convicted on retrial; he appealed alleging a Confrontation Clause violation for the preclusion and a weight-of-the-evidence claim.
The Superior Court (en banc) affirmed: it held Rosser waived the confrontation argument and, alternatively, that the trial court acted within its discretion because no factual foundation showed Rosser actually made the statement; the weight claim failed as the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Rosser's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether precluding cross-examination of S.R. about Rosser’s alleged post-rape statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Prosecution witness’s motive/bias could be shown by the statement; exclusion prevented effective cross-examination of witness credibility	Rosser waived the confrontation claim; and even on the merits there was no right to probe a subject lacking any factual foundation that Rosser made the statement	Waived; alternatively no Confrontation error — trial court properly limited cross-examination because Rosser produced no evidentiary foundation he made the statement
Whether verdicts were against the weight of the evidence	Jury should have rejected S.R.’s account; conviction shocks conscience	Evidence (surveillance timing, prompt report, SANE testimony, police ID) supported conviction and credibility findings	Denied — the trial court did not abuse its discretion; verdicts do not shock the conscience

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination may violate Confrontation Clause if they prevent jury from receiving a significantly different impression of witness credibility)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (prohibiting cross‑examination that would reveal a verifiable fact bearing on witness bias can violate confrontation rights)
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective—not unlimited—cross-examination)
Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (trial court may limit cross‑examination absent foundational support for the line of inquiry)
United States v. Martinez‑Vives, 475 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (prohibiting cross-examination where defendant failed to proffer supporting evidence avoids fishing expeditions)
Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (discussing confrontation clause and right to cross-examine adverse witnesses)