Commonwealth v. Witmayer
144 A.3d 939
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Michael Witmayer, a father-figure, was convicted by a jury of IDSI (with a victim under 16), indecent assault of a person under 16, corruption of a minor, and endangering the welfare of a child for sexual abuse of C.M. spanning ages 8–14 in Chester and Montgomery Counties.
- Initial allegations arose in May–June 2010 in Chester County; Witmayer voluntarily met Detective Prouty at the police station on June 3, 2010, and made a statement that was used at trial.
- Chester County declined to prosecute in 2010; new allegations prompted a Montgomery County investigation in 2012 that included a consensual recorded phone intercept between Witmayer and C.M.; recordings were provided to the Montgomery DA’s office and later used at trial.
- Montgomery County filed charges in 2013 covering misconduct in both Chester and Montgomery Counties; the Commonwealth moved on the first day of trial to amend the information to add "County of Chester," which the trial court allowed.
- Witmayer was sentenced to an aggregate 5.5 to 20 years (no mandatory minimums); he appealed raising five claims: (1) alleged missing marital element for IDSI (sentence legality), (2) improper venue / prejudicial amendment, (3) failure to suppress his June 3, 2010 statement (Miranda/custody), (4) recordings unauthenticated, and (5) recordings seized/handled in violation of the Wiretap Act.
Issues
| Issue | Witmayer's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing marital element for IDSI (legality of sentence) | No proof he was not married to complainant; therefore sentence illegal | This is a sufficiency claim not sentence legality; element was not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) | Waived; claim is sufficiency, not a legality-of-sentence issue |
| Venue and amendment to add "County of Chester" | Chester acts were separate; trial court abused discretion allowing Montgomery prosecution and permitting amendment (prejudicial) | Offenses formed one criminal episode; amendment was a form defect and did not add new facts or prejudice defense | Affirmed: acts were logically/temporally related (single episode); amendment proper under Pa.R.Crim.P. 564; no prejudice |
| Suppression of June 3, 2010 statement (Miranda/custody) | Meeting at station was custodial interrogation; should have received Miranda warnings | Witmayer came voluntarily; was told he was not under arrest and free to leave; interview short and non-coercive | Affirmed: objective totality shows not in custody, so no Miranda required |
| Authentication of consensual phone recordings | Recordings unauthenticated because the detective who obtained them didn’t testify | Multiple witnesses (victim, mother, detective, ADAs) authenticated tapes; gaps go to weight not admissibility | Affirmed: sufficient authentication; missing witnesses did not render recordings inadmissible |
| Chain of custody / Wiretap Act custody requirement | Recordings were briefly not in DA custody, violating 18 Pa.C.S. §5704(2)(ii) and warranting suppression | Recordings were transferred to DA promptly and stored in safe; any gap was explored at trial and concerns are for weight | Affirmed: gap in custody presented to jury; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting recordings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 101 A.3d 28 (Pa. 2014) (venue review and standard for single criminal episode)
- Commonwealth v. Kohler, 811 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2002) (tests for single criminal episode / logical and temporal relation)
- Commonwealth v. Veon, 109 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2015) (factors for prejudice when amending information)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors for custody analysis under Miranda)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (authentication and chain-of-custody principles)
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (waiver for issues not raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b))