Commonwealth v. Schley
136 A.3d 511
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Susan Schley (appellant) and her husband Charles are adoptive parents of the complainant, who lived in their home from age 5 to 17.
- The complainant testified Charles periodically made her touch his penis; she said she told Schley more than once and that Schley asked Charles and then did nothing, telling the complainant "what happens at the house doesn’t leave the house."
- Charles pled guilty to felony EWOC for sexually assaulting the complainant; Schley was charged with EWOC (misdemeanor) for failing to protect/report and was tried in a bench trial.
- Before trial Schley sought to admit evidence that the complainant had made three prior false sexual-assault allegations against non-family members; the trial court excluded this evidence under Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law (18 Pa.C.S. §3104).
- The trial court convicted Schley of EWOC and sentenced her to probation; Schley appealed arguing the Rape Shield Law did not bar the prior-false-allegations evidence and that the evidence was necessary to show mens rea and impeach the complainant.
- The Superior Court held the Rape Shield Law did not apply to Schley’s prosecution and that Johnson permits evidence of prior false allegations; the conviction was vacated and remanded for a new trial so the excluded evidence may be admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Schley’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rape Shield Law barred admission of the complainant’s prior false sexual-assault allegations | RSL applies only to prosecutions under Chapter 31 (sexual offenses) and thus does not apply to EWOC; alternatively, even if it applied, the prior false allegations are not "past sexual conduct" | RSL should be read broadly to avoid absurd results (e.g., attempted-rape prosecutions not protected) and thus can bar such evidence | RSL phrase "under this chapter" is plain and limits the statute to Chapter 31 prosecutions; RSL did not apply to Schley’s EWOC prosecution; prior false-allegation evidence also is not "past sexual conduct" under Johnson |
| Whether the prior false-allegation evidence was relevant and admissible to prove Schley’s mens rea and to impeach the complainant | The prior false allegations were highly probative of Schley’s reasonable belief that the complainant fabricated the accusation and of the complainant’s credibility — relevant to proving Schley’s knowledge and intent | The issue at trial was whether the complainant ever told Schley; prior lies about others (which Schley knew about) do not make it more probable Schley did not know about allegations against Charles | The evidence was relevant to Schley’s defense and credibility issues; exclusion prejudiced Schley and was not harmless because the complainant was the Commonwealth’s sole witness |
| Whether the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to sustain an EWOC conviction | Schley argued Commonwealth didn’t prove she was aware the child was in circumstances threatening physical/psychological welfare or that she knowingly violated her duty | Commonwealth argued the trial evidence showed Schley knew of the assaults and discouraged reporting, supporting intent to endanger | Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence of all EWOC elements; but conviction vacated due to erroneous exclusion of defense evidence |
| Remedy: whether relief is reversal, acquittal, or new trial | Schley sought reversal based on evidentiary error and insufficiency | Commonwealth sought to uphold conviction | Court vacated sentence and remanded for a new trial where the prior-false-allegation evidence may be admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 638 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1994) (Rape Shield Law does not encompass prior sexual assaults as "conduct" that reflects on chastity; such evidence may be admissible if relevant)
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (elements and mens rea required for EWOC explained)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 600 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 1992) (reversal of EWOC conviction where evidence failed to show defendant was aware she placed child in threatening circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 515 A.2d 311 (Pa. Super. 1986) (discusses knowing violation of duty to protect as element of EWOC)
- Commonwealth v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (statutory construction principle that effect should be given to all provisions of a statute)
- Commonwealth v. Luster, 71 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)