Commonwealth v. Yockey
158 A.3d 1246
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jacob Yockey was tried for multiple sexual offenses arising from repeated sexual abuse of a minor male when the victim was 14–15; incidents occurred at Yockey’s house between 2013 and 2014.
- The victim testified to five separate molestations; he reported the final incident to his mother one week later and police were notified.
- Several groomsmen who slept at Yockey’s house on the night before his wedding testified about where people slept and activities that evening; their testimony contained minor inconsistencies about whether they were upstairs or in the basement.
- The jury convicted Yockey of corruption of minors and two counts of indecent assault; he was acquitted of IDSI and unlawful contact. He was sentenced to 9.5–19 months’ incarceration plus five years probation and ordered to have no internet access.
- Yockey appealed, raising: (1) improper questioning asking a witness if another witness was lying, (2) prosecutorial comment in closing that he was less than a “man,” and (3) an illegal internet-access probation condition.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Permissibility of asking witness if another witness was "lying" | Such inquiry improperly invades jury’s exclusive role to determine credibility and was objectionable | Question went to inconsistency in testimony; permissible impeachment/context | Court: Questioning was erroneous (generally prohibited), but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because issue was collateral and testimony was cumulative |
| 2. Prosecutor’s closing remark calling appellant possibly not deserving the title of "man" | Remark was prejudicial, dehumanizing, and required a curative instruction or new trial | Comment was rhetorical advocacy; late objection; trial court instruction to decide on evidence sufficed | Court: Overruling objection was error but not reversible; comment was a single passing remark and jurors were instructed to decide on evidence only |
| 3. Probation condition banning internet access | Condition not supported by record; no evidence Yockey used internet to commit offenses; thus it is unreasonable | Condition relates to rehabilitation and supervision; challenge is discretionary, not legal | Court: Claim was waived for failure to raise at sentencing/post-sentence and in Rule 1925(b); treated as a discretionary-sentence challenge and thus not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Alicia, 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014) (expert or witness testimony on witness credibility is impermissible; credibility is for the jury)
- Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970 (Pa. Super. 2016) (lay witness or investigator may not opine on defendant’s credibility; such testimony invades jury province)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (harmless-error framework: when evidentiary error may be deemed harmless)
- Liggett v. People, 135 P.3d 725 (Colo. 2006) (en banc) (analysis on why asking a witness if another witness is lying is inadmissible and unhelpful)
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (prosecutorial closing argument has broad latitude; reversible only if comments create fixed bias preventing fair verdict)