Commonwealth v. Sandusky
77 A.3d 663
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Gerald A. Sandusky was convicted by a jury of 45 counts for sexual abuse of eight boys occurring from 1995–2008; victims met via his nonprofit, The Second Mile.
- Victims (now adults) testified; most delayed reporting for years (delays ranged from ~2 to 16 years).
- At sentencing the trial court designated Sandusky a sexually violent predator and imposed an aggregate 30–90 year sentence; post‑sentence motions were denied and Sandusky appealed.
- Trial court refused defense request to give the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instruction on "prompt complaint."
- Defense raised three additional claims on appeal: (1) prosecutorial comment implying Sandusky’s choice not to testify; (2) denial of continuances (claimed to impede effective assistance of counsel); and (3) alleged error in the jury instruction on defendant’s good character.
Issues
| Issue | Sandusky’s Argument | Commonwealth’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing "prompt complaint" instruction | Delayed reporting by most victims required instruction to allow jury to assess believability | Court gave general credibility instruction and argued prompt‑complaint not mandatory; delay in child abuse cases can be expected | No prejudice; failure to give specific prompt‑complaint charge was not reversible error under facts (trial court should have analyzed age/maturity but omission harmless) |
| Whether prosecutor improperly commented on defendant’s failure to testify | Prosecutor’s closing improperly suggested defendant chose not to testify, violating Fifth Amendment | Prosecutor’s remarks were fair rebuttal; defense objected but did not request curative relief | Claim waived for appeal (no request for mistrial or curative instruction); court found no preserved error |
| Whether denial of continuances violated Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel (structural error) | Denial of multiple continuances after voluminous late discovery deprived counsel of preparation; argued structural defect requiring automatic reversal | Trial court carefully considered competing interests and denied continuances as not arbitrary; any error was subject to harmless‑error review | Not a structural error; denial was within discretion and not arbitrary; counsel later testified no prejudice, so claim fails |
| Whether character‑evidence instruction was erroneous | Instruction undermined Neely by telling jury to weigh character with other evidence, negating "by itself" effect | Instruction tracked model charge and Cleary/Neely law; jury was told character evidence may by itself create reasonable doubt | Instruction proper; Pennsylvania law allows character evidence to be weighed with other evidence and may still, alone, create reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 904 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing refusal to give requested jury instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Prince, 719 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prompt complaint instruction permits questioning complainant credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Lane, 555 A.2d 1246 (Pa. 1989) (prompt complaint relevant when victim is a child)
- Commonwealth v. Ables, 590 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1991) (prompt complaint evaluated case‑by‑case)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 824 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 2003) (harmless error standard for jury charge omissions)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 672 A.2d 1353 (Pa. Super. 1996) (child victim may not appreciate offensiveness of conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 460 A.2d 739 (Pa. 1983) (failure to request curative relief can waive prosecutorial misconduct claim)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (preservation rules for prosecutorial misconduct)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (due process limits on denial of continuances)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (denial of continuance not always Sixth Amendment violation; trial court has scheduling discretion)
- Gonzalez‑Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (structural errors that require automatic reversal)
- Commonwealth v. Neely, 561 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1989) (defendant must receive jury instruction that character evidence may, by itself, create reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Khamphouseane, 642 A.2d 490 (Pa. Super. 1994) (model character instruction consistent with Neely)
- Commonwealth v. Cleary, 19 A. 1017 (Pa. 1890) (longstanding rule that good character evidence may by itself create reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Sampson, 900 A.2d 887 (Pa. Super. 2006) (endorsement of standard character instruction)
Judgment of sentence affirmed.