Commonwealth v. Yocolano
169 A.3d 47
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant John Yocolano was convicted at a jury trial of multiple offenses including indecent assault, sexual assault, rape, kidnapping, IDSI, and various related crimes.
- Evidence and evidentiary rulings centered on Rule 404(b) prior bad acts, domestic abuse histories, and the qualification/role of lay versus expert testimony.
- The trial court precluded Dr. Cyril Wecht’s expert report/testimony and allowed lay testimony from hospital personnel to testify about causation and injuries.
- Mid-trial prosecution disclosures included two third-party PFAs and other evidence, with questions about notice and relevance under Rule 404(b).
- The trial court limited Appellant’s ability to recall A.A. or call rebuttal witnesses regarding A.A.’s credibility and past acts, and restricted cross-examination related to Facebook posts.
- The court ultimately vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial due to multiple evidentiary errors affecting the fairness of the trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying 404(b) rebuttal | Yocolano contends he should rebut 404(b) evidence to test credibility. | Commonwealth argues rebuttal on collateral matters is limited. | Abuse found; rebuttal testimony properly denied was erroneous. |
| Whether mid-trial Facebook evidence allowed further recall of WAA | Facebook posts show motive to lie in custody dispute; rebuttal material. | Posts are remote, vague, not linked to incident; not probative. | Abuse found; trial court erred in excluding rebuttal. |
| Whether lay witnesses testimony crossed into expert opinions on ligature marks | ER staff should not opine on causation; Dr. Ung and Nurse Taylor could not testify as experts without disclosure. | Witnesses observed injuries; lay testimony about injuries allowed. | Abuse found; improper blurring of lay and expert testimony without proper notice. |
| Whether mid-trial admission of third-party PFAs violated 404(b) notice and nexus | Third-party PFAs should be admissible for motive/plan with proper notice and nexus. | Court had good cause; notices mid-trial were acceptable. | Abuse found; lack of good cause and lack of close nexus rendered admission improper. |
| Whether cumulative evidentiary errors denied Appellant a fair trial | Series of errors collectively prejudiced the defense. | No single error or harmless error assessment supports reversal. | The cumulative errors violated fair trial standards; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216 (Pa. Super. 2016) (recognizes exceptions to Rule 404(b) and res gestae balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 320 (Pa. Super. 2012) (res gestae balancing factors for admission of related acts)
- Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (PFA admissibility to show motive/intent under 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (PFA relevance to abuse and ill-will; complete story context)
- Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380 (Pa. 2013) (rebuttal testimony proper when facts discredit proponent's witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Elliott, 700 A.2d 1243 (Pa. 1997) (common scheme/plan or design admissibility under 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 854 A.2d 465 (Pa. 2004) (lay vs expert considering ligature/strangulation concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Spots, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (illustrates expert witness standards and reasonable certainty)
- Commonwealth v. Roles, 116 A.3d 122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (disclosure duties for expert materials and continuance of discovery)