Commonwealth v. Ruder
62 A.3d 1038
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant William Kuder, Chalfont Borough Council member, little league coach, and trusted family friend of KP’s family, had unfettered access to KP as a youth.
- KP, aged 12 in 2002, was sexually assaulted by Appellant in Appellant’s basement during computer-session visits.
- Incidents included fondling KP’s genitals, attempted and completed oral contact, and removal of KP’s pants in two sessions; first occurrence occurred in June 2002.
- KP did not report the abuse until 2010; police obtained a wire-intercept order after KP wore a recording device and confronted Appellant.
- Appellant was charged with attempted IDSI of a person under 16, two counts of indecent assault, and two counts of indecent exposure; suppression motion denied; trial led to guilty verdicts and a 3–10 year sentence for the IDSI count; appellate briefing challenged six issues.
- The court affirmed the judgment, addressing suppression, pre- and post-arrest silence, rebuttal and hearsay evidence, and cross-examination of character witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for in-home interception under Wiretap Act | Kuder argues insufficient probable cause to justify interception | Commonwealth contends sufficient connection between KP and Appellant to obtain interception | Probable cause existed; suppression denied |
| Cross-examination about post-arrest silence | Turner protections violated by cross-examining post-arrest silence | Rights not violated under controlling precedents | Turner violated but error Harmless; no relief granted |
| Rebuttal witness on conspiracy claim | Disciullo testimony improperly rebutted collateral conspiracy claim | Testimony properly rebutted Appellant’s denial of conspiracy | Not abuse of discretion; testimony admissible as proper rebuttal |
| Hearsay—V.P. and Thiel statements | Hearsay without applicable exceptions or proper basis | Statements offered for context or non-hearsay purposes | Erroneous admission deemed harmless; did not affect verdict |
| Cross-examination of defense character witnesses | Cross-examination about personal opinions and hypotheticals improper | Widened scope permissible where defense opened door | Allowed; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence and other witnesses |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 (Pa.Super. 2008) (review of suppression standard; aggrieved party under Wiretap Act)
- Commonwealth v. McMillan, 13 A.3d 521 (Pa.Super. 2011) (probable cause in interception; mentor-relationship analysis)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 454 A.2d 537 (Pa. 1982) (prosecution cannot impeach post-arrest silence under Turner; pre-trial silence limits)
- Commonwealth v. Bolus, 545 Pa. 103 (Pa. 1996) (pre-arrest silence impeachment; limits of Turner applicability)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 626 A.2d 154 (Pa. 1993) (improper reference to post-arrest silence innately prejudicial; ineffective assistance context)