Commonwealth v. Stephens
74 A.3d 1034
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Defendant (Appellant) convicted after jury trial of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, endangering welfare of children, and corruption of minors for sexual abuse of a female child aged ~8–10 over ~2 years.
- Victim disclosed abuse years later to a boyfriend and then to her mother; police recorded an intercepted phone call in which Defendant denied the allegations.
- Trial court excluded the recorded phone call as inadmissible hearsay; defense argued it fit present sense impression or excited utterance exceptions.
- Defendant was sentenced to 2.5–5 years imprisonment plus five years supervised probation; post-trial he challenged exclusion of the recording and the court’s finding that he is a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) under Megan’s Law.
- At the SVP hearing the Commonwealth’s expert (Dr. Mapes) diagnosed pedophilia and opined Defendant was predatory and at risk to re-offend; defense expert (Dr. Samuel) disagreed. Trial court found Dr. Mapes more credible and designated Defendant an SVP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of intercepted phone call (hearsay) | Recording admissible under present sense impression | Recording admissible as excited utterance; otherwise inadmissible hearsay | Exclusion affirmed — not present sense impression (not contemporaneous), not excited utterance (no ongoing stress; time to fabricate) |
| SVP classification sufficiency | Commonwealth: Dr. Mapes’ diagnosis (pedophilia), offense facts, and assessment factors proved mental abnormality and predatory risk by clear and convincing evidence | Defendant: Dr. Samuel’s testing and interviews show no pedophilia; tests undermine SVP finding | Affirmed — viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, Dr. Mapes’ opinion plus offense facts satisfy clear and convincing standard for SVP designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kuder, 62 A.3d 1038 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (review limited to stated reasons when trial court explains ruling)
- Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 805 A.2d 566 (Pa. Super. 2002) (present sense impression application example)
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (present sense impression/necessity of immediacy)
- Commonwealth v. Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (clear and convincing standard for SVP determinations explained)
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 907 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition and requirement of predatory conduct for SVP)
- Commonwealth v. Dengler, 890 A.2d 372 (Pa. 2005) (SVP statute does not require a particular diagnostic standard)
- Commonwealth v. Geiter, 929 A.3d 648 (Pa. Super. 2007) (pedophilia diagnosis plus offense facts can support SVP designation)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factfinder may accept or reject expert opinion)