14 A.3d 844
Pa. Super. Ct.2010Background
- Ruggiano was charged with IDSI with a child, two counts of indecent assault of a person under 13, and indecent exposure involving JS and JAS; assaults occurred 1995–1999 (JS) and 2001 (JAS) while Ruggiano was a minor, charged at age 21.
- Pretrial motions included a Commonwealth request to preclude references to JS's juvenile sexual misconduct adjudications; Ruggiano sought access to CYS and juvenile files and to admit related testimony.
- Trial court denied the Rape Shield-based preclusion and other motions; Ruggiano entered a plea, later withdrew, and a new trial was scheduled.
- Prior to trial, Ruggiano asserted JS’s juvenile adjudication and a permissive, sexually charged home environment would prove bias or motive to fabricate; the court heard a offer of proof and denied the motion.
- Ruggiano was tried Jan. 14, 2009, convicted of indecent assault with respect to JS and indecent exposure with respect to JAS; IDSI charges were acquitted; he received a 7–23 month sentence.
- Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the Rape Shield Law did not bar admissible evidence showing bias/motive to fabricate; evidence was probative of credibility and not solely about chastity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial should have been granted from officer’s deceptive impression testimony | Ruggiano: officer’s comment implied deception; prejudicial error | Commonwealth: no reversible error; not a mistrial | Not decided; court focused on issue 3; issues 1–2 not resolved on appeal |
| Whether prosecutorial elicitation of uncharged sexual incidents was permissible | Ruggiano: uncharged acts outside information scope; prejudicial | Commonwealth: admissible under proper framing | Not decided; issues 1–2 not resolved on appeal |
| Rape Shield Act precluded evidence of victim’s past sexual conduct and family misconduct; admissibility of bias/motive evidence | Ruggiano: admissible to show bias/motive to fabricate; not barred | Commonwealth: shield law bars such evidence | Reversed; trial court erred in applying Rape Shield; evidence relevant to bias/motive admitted; remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Eck, 413 Pa.Super. 538 (Pa. Super. 1992) (evidence of victim's juvenile record allowed to show fabrication motive if probative and not unduly prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Majorana, 503 Pa. 602 (Pa. 1983) (limits of Rape Shield and need to consider probative value vs. prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 364 Pa.Super. 620 (Pa. Super. 1987) (impeachment considerations for credibility evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Black, 337 Pa.Super. 548 (Pa. Super. 1985) (impeachment for credibility; limits of Rape Shield)
- Commonwealth v. Fernsler, 715 A.2d 435 (Pa. Super. 1998) (Rape Shield balance against defense need for exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 582 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1990) (rape shield bow to confrontation rights when proffered evidence is probative and not cumulative)
- Commonwealth v. Northrip, 945 A.2d 198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (admissibility despite Rape Shield where evidence shows potential fabrication motive)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 606 A.2d 449 (Pa. Super. 1992) (evidence of prior related sexual conduct admissible to show fabrication motive)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 566 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 1989) (Rape Shield purpose to prevent trial from focusing on chastity)
- Commonwealth v. Berkowitz, 641 A.2d 1161 (Pa. 1994) (preclude trial focus on victim's morality in rape cases)