Commonwealth v. SheltonCommonwealth v. Shelton
As not only the Notary Public but also the Chief Clerk of the City of Franklin Municipal Court for the State of Ohio, Dorothy Lykins is an authority figure whose word/testimony is to be and should be respected. There is nothing in the record to indicate anything that would or could have biased or impeached her testimony on these key facts. Therefore, even if her Affidavit was not completely in line with her testimony, that is of no significance whatsoever.
Brief of Appellant, at 26.
The notion that Lykins’ testimony is not to be questioned because of her status as a public official is both dangerous and absurd and, as such, may be dismissed out of hand. The testimony of an elected official in a court of law is entitled to no greater presumption of credibility than that of any other citizen; to suggest otherwise is to begin a journey down a slippery slope.
In sum, the Orphans’ Court’s decision in this matter was based largely on credibility determinations which, based upon our review, are clearly supported in the record. Nalaschi, supra. Moreover, we can discern no error of law in the court’s conclusion that McClintock failed to establish by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence, Murray, supra, that the contents of Decedent’s will were substantially as appeared on the photocopied document presented for probate. Janosky, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Orphans’ Court.
Order affirmed.
Daniel J. Barrett, District Attorney, Towanda, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Richard A. Wilson, Public Defender, Towanda, for appellant.
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Tyler Paul Shelton, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of an aggregate term of 75 to 360 months’ incarceration imposed following his conviction by a jury of 15 counts of Corruption of Minors. Appellant challenges the court’s Order granting the Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine, which permitted the Commonwealth to present to the jury portions of a video recording of the victim’s forensic interview.1 After review, we affirm.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with 100 counts each of Rape of Child, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault of Child, Indecent Assault, and Corruption of Minors,2 40 counts of Corruption of Minors,3 and 10 counts of Attempted Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Child.4
The trial court held a preliminary hearing on October 16, 2015. At that hearing, the victim was unable to testify in sufficient detail to the events giving rise to the charges. Accordingly, the court dismissed the charges against Appellant.
The Commonwealth refiled the charges, and the court held a preliminary hearing on November 10, 2015. At that time, the
On May 26, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a Motion in Limine in which it requested permission to “use all prior recorded statements of the victim as part of the testimony” pursuant to
Appellant’s one-day jury trial commenced on June 24, 2016. The victim began testifying in the late morning. At the conclusion of the morning session of the trial, the court heard argument on the Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine. Following argument and a lunch recess, the Commonwealth recalled the victim to the witness stand for additional direct examination and cross-examination, after which the court heard additional argument on the Commonwealth’s Motion. The Commonwealth argued that the video recording represented a “prior recollection” that “would be more accurate” than her current recollection, that the victim testified that she “recalled it better then,” and that she had stated that if she did not currently remember the answer to a question, she would respond to it by saying “no.” N.T., 6/24/16 (PM Session), at 24. Appellant’s counsel objected to admission of the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview, arguing that Rule 803.1(3) did not contemplate this kind of admission, that the contents of the recording are cumulative of the victim’s in-court testimony, and that the victim had not testified that she lacked a present recollection of the event, and, in fact, specifically testified to “numerous events.” Id. at 24-25. Ultimately, the court permitted the jury to see an approximately fifteen minute portion of the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview. Id. at 25-26.
That same day, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on 15 counts of Corruption of Minors, and acquitted Appellant of all other charges. On September 15, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to the above term of incarceration.
Appellant filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion in which he challenged, inter alia, the Commonwealth’s use of the victim’s prior recorded statement at trial. On December 18, 2016, the trial court denied Appellant’s Motion.
Appellant filed a timely appeal from his Judgment of Sentence on January 16, 2017. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with
Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
Did the trial court err in granting the Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine wherein the court allowed the use of a forensic interview over timely objection from the defense with regard to Pa.R.E[.] 803.1(3) as the recorded recollection of the declarant witness.
Appellant’s Brief at 7.6
In his only issue on appeal, Appellant challenges the admission of parts of the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview. Id. at 12-13. He argues that
The “[a]dmission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and quotation omitted). “Accordingly, a ruling admitting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962, 966 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Appellant claims that the court should have denied the Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine because the Commonwealth did not satisfy the requirements of
Our review of the victim’s direct and cross-examination testimony and the transcribed portions of the forensic interview reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview. The Commonwealth demonstrated that the video recording represented the recorded recollection of the victim concerning a matter about which the victim once knew “but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately[.]”
Specifically, the victim testified that the child advocate conducted the forensic interview depicted in the video recording within one week of the victim reporting the abuse to her mother. N.T., 6/24/16 (PM Session), at 3. At trial, the victim acknowledged that her memory of events was “much better then[.]” Id. Importantly, she informed the court that when the Commonwealth asked her a question at trial to which she could not recall the answer, she would say “no,” rather than admit that she did not recall. Id. Although the victim was able to testify at trial about many details of the abuse by her father, from our review of the transcribed portions of the video recording we discern that the victim reported the events of abuse more fully, with a greater level of detail, at her forensic interview. The victim testified that there were times during her testimony when she did not recall the answer to a question posed by the Commonwealth but
We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video recording as cumulative of the victim’s testimony. Our review indicates that the victim’s statement in the video recording, rather than being cumulative of her trial testimony, supplemented it by providing additional details and elaborating on those to which she testified at trial.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.