Commonwealth v. Semenza
127 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Lawrence Semenza, former fire captain and police chief, was tried for sexual offenses against N.B., a volunteer firefighter who was 15 when their relationship began; jury convicted him of corruption of minors and failure to report child abuse, acquitted on other counts.
- Commonwealth presented testimony from M.K.S., an adult who had consensual sexual encounters with Semenza in 2007–08, over Semenza’s objection, under Pa.R.E. 404(b) as evidence of a common scheme.
- The trial court admitted M.K.S.’s testimony to show a pattern of conduct (common scheme/plan).
- Semenza appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of prior-bad-acts evidence, (2) flawed jury instruction on corruption of minors, (3) erroneous sex‑offender registration ruling, and (4) excessive sentencing.
- The Superior Court focused on the 404(b) ruling and the jury instruction; it concluded M.K.S.’s testimony was not admissible as common-scheme evidence because similarities were generic and key differences (including the victim ages and nature/location of sexual contact) showed no unique signature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Semenza) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility under Pa.R.E. 404(b) (common scheme) | M.K.S. evidence shows a recurring pattern (older supervisor engaging in sexual relationships with subordinates) probative to prove scheme. | Evidence was remote, dissimilar, involved an adult, and lacked the unusual/specific signature required for common‑scheme admissibility; prejudicial. | Reversed: M.K.S. testimony inadmissible under Rule 404(b); differences and lack of unique modus operandi made it improper and unfairly prejudicial; new trial ordered. |
| 2. Jury instruction on corruption of minors | (Implicit) Instruction as given was proper to guide jury. | The court erred by instructing that any "act" that tends to corrupt morals is enough; should have limited to "sexual contact" to avoid conviction for innocuous conduct. | Held for Commonwealth: Instruction was accurate and lawful—statute uses "any act" and courts may refer to community standards. |
| 3. Sex‑offender registration required for §6301(a)(1) conviction | Corruption of minors qualifies as a sexual offense requiring registration. | (Argued error below) Registration and offense gravity scoring were incorrect because offense might not be sexual in nature. | Not addressed on merits—vacated sentence and remanded for new trial due to prior‑acts error. |
| 4. Sentencing (offense gravity score and excessiveness) | Sentence and scoring appropriate. | Scoring (OGS 5 vs 4) and 15‑year registration yield excessive sentence outside guidelines. | Not reached—remanded for new trial; sentencing issues reserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595 (Pa. 2013) (other‑crimes evidence must show very specific, signature similarities to be admissible as common scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 530 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1987) (prior bad acts insufficient when similarities are generic; new trial required)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 611 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1992) (reaffirming that prior acts must have distinctive commonalities to be admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (prior romantic‑partner abuse testimony inadmissible where it demonstrated propensity, not a unique modus operandi)
- Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review standard: evidentiary rulings are within trial court’s discretion but reversible for abuse)