*1 no error the trial convicting court
Alexander attempted forgery of both
credit card fraud in the instant case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee
v. Anthony SPETZER, Appellant.
Jon
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of 27, April
Submitted 1998.
Filed Dec. 1998.
Reargument Denied Feb.
BROSKY, J. judgment an appeal
This is from a of sen- imposed upon appellant tence after he was charges relating numerous convicted sexual offenses as as criminal solicitation well *3 and offenses. intimidation of witness/victim Appellant raises six issues for our consid- (1) eration which restate we as follows: for, was in- whether counsel ineffective alia, objéet failing ter to admission confidential communications appel- between wife, hearsay testimony lant and and testimony; other irrelevant or inadmissible (2) failing whether the court to erred suppress intercepted contents tele- phone conversations because admission of confidentiality privilege; them violated the (3) sentencing did the court abuse dis- its (4) sentencing appellant; cretion in did Attorney prosecutorial District commit mis- turning potentially conduct in not over a ex- (5) counsel; culpatory appellant’s letter to denying did err the court mo- (6) tion to and was sever the evidence suffi- cient sustain as at- the conviction to all tempt charges? and solicitation We reverse part for a trial. remand new is, following The recitation of the for facts part, light set in a most forth favorable At Commonwealth verdict winner. appellant, Spetzer the time of trial Jon had Spetzer years to Kim for four married during Spetzer repeatedly which Mrs. subjected physical psychological January Spetzer’s abuse. In daughter year previous old twelve from (herein B.G.), relationship, had who been liv- ing Kentucky along Spetzer’s with Mrs. prior three other from the rela- Pennsylvania tionship, came to for an extend- stay appellant, Spetzer ed April In their two children. B.G. her, fondling awoke find appellant which he continued to do for de- several minutes McGlaughlin, College, ap- Ronald State for spite protests, days appel- her Several later pellant. lant had forcible intercourse with B.G. after Sloane, Bellefonte, Stephen Atty., P. Dist. sock in putting threatening her mouth and Com., appellee. to kill her or ruin her life if she ever told
anyone. following evenings two appel- KELLY, again Before lant raped knifepoint BROSKY B.G. at while MONTEMURO*, reiterating his to kill JJ. threats ruin her * Superior assigned Retired Court. Justice facilitated order to a recantation letter anyone. Appellant force if she told
life appel- pre-trial hearing, so Spetzer she written. After the rapes drugging Kim a court order go sleep despite an earlier time. lant home returned Spetzer barring his beat Mrs. presence and B.G. and May Spetzer of 1995 Mrs. took letter of again. finally wrote a The victim stay Kentucky the other children pressure from to continued recantation due father. There the victim’s biological their Spetzer. appellant and Mrs. appellant had done to discovered what father after he took B.G. to Children B.G. which urged Mrs. out bail on While Kentucky report Youth Services in and Mrs. inquire B.G. called incidents. Mrs. daughter had inter- oldest whether Kentucky and him that she had from told him having a sexual encounter with est in rapes. Appellant became learned about yip to set such an encounter attempt and to *4 Spetzer Mrs. return angry and insisted that girls a motel. and the at between himself Pennsylvania and she should tell B.G. to that Spetzer gist plan that Mrs. The the was keep her to mouth shut. girls, who had supposed to meet the was Kentucky Spetzer care, in Mrs. remained placed foster at a local mall in appellant arrived several more weeks until foster shopping while with their were by bus and drove her and their two children appointed family and drive them to the desti- driving Pennsylvania. to While home back attempts pro- to After several failed nation. Mrs. made verbal appellant Spetzer beat and in appellant duce a rendezvous beat wife forcing her to her threats towards in addition try to to set compel order to her to continue Appellant perform to sexual acts. was first up meeting. the arrested after authorities became aware of contemplated sexual Fearful if the beating Spetzer another Mrs. was appellant might encounter did not materialize Psychiatric placed Hospital. in Meadows two, rape attempt an abduction and Spetzer petition seeking filed a a Mrs. Pro- eventually reported appellant’s Spetzer Mrs. pursue not tection From Abuse order but did to the State Police after which she actions pressure imposed matter to due financial intercept tape recording consented to a by appellant’s parents. During visits to see phone appellant. her conversations with At hospital appellant her at the husband made calling Spetzer point appellant was Mrs. inculpatory Spet- statements to Mrs. several daily, on and much frequent, a or more basis descriptions of had including zer how he arranging with their conversations dealt quiet during rapes. B.G. Spetzer, Mrs. now the sexual encounter. Eventually brought Pennsylva- B.G. to was played her role cooperating police, with report rapes her to to the nia father willing participant in the scheme and Pennsylvania State Police which led appellant suggested to July 14, filing complaint of a criminal on meeting him a might have an interest at 1995, charging appellant with various sexual Additionally, hotel for sexual encounter. charges. above assaults on B.G. assault The appellant inquiries from she response as- provided charges the factual basis for the on that she sured him several occasions was leveled in information number 1995-1116. taping the conversations. jail and after his eventual release While assumption that Operating under the engaged in a course of appellant on bail place, appellant meeting take arrived key get witnesses designed conduct subsequently designated was at the hotel and allegations. their He against him to recant In criminal infor- State Police. arrested story urged Spetzer Mrs. to recant her about number 1996-505 was mation to have rapes he told her B.G. also intimidat- charged with numerous counts of saying office a letter to D.A.’s write witnesses, and crimi- criminal solicitation ing in fact lied. recanted her she attempt. nal -get B.G. to write a tried to statement and July jury was of 1996 and appellant continued A held recantation while letter jail on counts of guilty from in was found all the victim write his wife (sic) informations, very both criminal a total to leak slow so the van would be post-trial counts. motions Pennsylvania by Numerous were out of the time Leo would 90). including (Id., appointment filed one for of new Appellant’s have an accident.” at counsel, granted. Appellant’s which was new jail “you statement to wife while he was in post-trial (sic) filed counsel additional motions suppose stop all of this before it 92). (Id., which included assertions of ineffective assis- started.” at “He said there’s own hearing argu- (sic) tance of counsel. After you two witnesses. There’s and [B.G.] motions, during ments on the which trial (Id., you testify.” He said don’t have to at questioned regarding allega- counsel 92-93). you’re going “He said then well ineffectiveness, tions of all claims for relief go my lawyer you’re have to see going appeal were denied. This followed. go my lawyer you have to tell lied to the 93). (Id., police.” Spetzer alleged at I. Confidential Communications response following was to the Appellant first asserts that his trial coun- effect: “I didn’t want to at first but I said I failing sel was ineffective for would.” Mrs. comments additional wife, testimony Kimberly Spetzer. of his appellant told her to have write a [B.G.] testimony replete of Mrs. stating letter to the D.A. that she lied had communications between and her- 94). (Id., rapes. about the A statement include, They self. but are not limited to: a respect Spetzer’s potential to Mrs. lia- *5 got really appellant upset statement bility lying police: you for to the “well won’t report when he discovered that a had been get nothing compared get to I’ll what Kentucky equivalent the made to of CYS and raping “they put wouldn’t me in [B.G.] “you that he stated better make sure that kid 119). jail (Id., pregnant.” because I was at keeps your better her mouth shut. You tell Spetzer ap- Mrs. also testified that she told business_” (N.T., sister to mind her own Jon, pellant going get lawyer, “I’m not to 75). p. Spetzer’s Mrs. statement to 7/23/96 going because I didn’t lie. I’m not to lie for appellant disgusted. that “I was I didn’t 120). (Id., you in court.” Spetzer at Mrs. again.” think I him to touch me ever wanted appellant’s further to testified statements re- 76). (Id., at Additional statements that Mrs. lating to his desire to have sex with her Spetzer her had better make sure sister and (Id., daughters he when was out on bail. at 77). (Id., keep B.G. their mouths shut. at 124-25). Spetzer’s to Mrs. statement Additional communications between hus- “my family at whole was mad me because I regarded taped telephone band and wife it, too, reporting should be and I haven’t Spetzer conversations. Kim related details 78). (Id., yet.” Spetzer’s at Mrs. statement “ conversations, of these which included discus- Jon, you raped to I know Bran- appellant’s attempts sion of arrange to dy,” appellant’s response “well it wasn’t sexual encounter her at a sex_ rape. really It It was wasn’t sex they shopping motel while went at a mall. way it all the get because I didn’t in.” An- at.143-45). (Id., Furthermore, taped statement that “He told me that he other played jury. conversations were for the had, quiet he her was stuff a how sock Since represented recordings of the ac- throat, put tape duct over it down her and he tual repre- conversations the entire content really said he had her scared with a knife.” sented communications between 83). (Id., at and his wife. These conversations included by There was an additional statement Mrs. numerous in discussions which Spetzer following effect: “He told me go along Spetzer, pretending Mrs. A raped by he her five times.” statement appellant, planned arrangement the fictitious appellant, attributed “I told girls to have a sexual encounter with at anybody ever told that if she I was [B.G.] hotel. 84). (Id., at going to kill her.” by examples made ap- Having further testified to statements set forth numerous alleged pellant relating sabotaging appellant’s to an of a testimony implicated first suppose issue, van. fluid was challenge “He said the brake address we now
707 compe or is to Kim is that a husband wife nications] to trial failure counsel’s upon testify a defense based testimony relating confidential tent to to rebut or her character grounds that attack his requires a deter- This first communications. case, testimony could conduct. In such admissibility of the regarding mination encompass communications.” confidential communications. Hancharik, 534 Pa. v. Commonwealth only At law not was a common (1993). 441-42, 1074, 1077 also It is 633 A.2d other, testify against the but incompetent to that, face, sections notable their two spouses between was fur a communication in that appear hopelessly to be inconsistent at confidential inadmissible ther deemed pronouncements in both general found this rule in trial. The codified version of com given cannot effect. If the sections § Pennsylvania at 42 is found in munications are deemed admissible and states: at terpretation appear odds with [ejxcept provided in this sub- as otherwise Conversely, § 5914. if the communications chapter, proceeding a criminal neither interpre deemed then that are inadmissible competent wife shall be husband nor appear tation would odds with testify to commu- permitted to confidential § Pa.C.S.A. 6381. other, by one to the unless nications made determining give section effect which trial. privilege is waived escape that sections 5913 and it cannot notice point does The Commonwealth specifically designed apply 5914 are subchapter” “this exception stated within proceedings could criminal whereas negate which would work arguably apply proceeding criminal to a present case. The Commonwealth does wording virtue of its rather broad but contend, however, that the communications in a pertaining inserted law non-criminal question their status lose conspicuous It is also child abuse matters. 6381(c). operation Pa.C.S.A This of 23 legislature any excep that the failed insert *6 particular found the Child section is within application § the text tions to the of 5914 in states, Protective Law in rele- Services and so in immedi of that section while it did the part, vant 5913, ately preceding section. Section deal privilege of confidential communication testify ing spousal incompetence any between husband wife or between provides against spouse, the several other professional person,... shall not constitute exceptions including proceed in criminal one excluding grounds pro- evidence bodily injury attempted, violence ings “for or ceeding regarding child the cause abuse or other, upon the upon done or threatened or of child abuse. wife, minor of said husband and children them, either or the minor children of of this meant Appellant argues that section was custody,...” any minor child in their care only proceedings encompass conclude from the inclu It is reasonable to Services and not crimi- Child Protective law § 5913 its ab exception of this sion argues proceedings. nal The Commonwealth 5914, § not exception sence in that all encompasses proceedings that it court apply meant to to confidential communica involving criminal including “child abuse” However, significant factor tions. another agree appellant. must prosecutions. We Supreme is Court’s failure our decision our the Common- It is notable that the section § 23 6381 find confi to utilize Pa.C.S.A posture of wealth relies validate Com admissible in dential communications regarding admissibility is found in an act 435, Hancharik, 633 v. 534 Pa. monwealth protection proceedings. non-criminal child (1993). A.2d 1074 5914, very § by the it As terms consid- subchapter Supreme Court is not within the same In Hancharik our found confidentiality privi- privilege to invalidate the the husband-wife appear would not ered Indeed, a child sexual abuse Supreme our the context of lege found in that section. testimony of the wife’s exception sole to this found that “[t]he Court stated that case and between she and of confidential commu- [privileged rule status confidential 708 objecting would have been excludable not the admission of the confi- proper
had counsel taken the dential apparent communications was on the object steps testimony. record that explained and block the The could have counsel’s object. court that failure to provisions concluded of 42 Since trial counsel had not from, questioned § separate Pa.C.S.A. 5914 as to his motives he was by, 5913, § deemed to be effective provisions apparent unaffected which, above, grounds without a determination of his actual indicated allows a approach reasons. Under testify the Court did against involving another in cases bodily find counsel ineffective but did leave a injury to minor children of either rather clear statement that the communica- spouse or minor children in their care. Thus, privileged. tions were indeed the Court concluded the husband- confidentiality privilege wife ap- was indeed course, possible, It is Supreme that our plicable in a case where the husband was contemplated Court never even applica- sexually accused of abusing a minor. How- bility § analyzing 6381 when Hancharik. ever, inquiry this did not end the in Han- However, opinion, given in our great charik. Since Hancharik was an ineffective- legal level scholarship possessed by our case, one, ness of present counsel as is the highest court and the fact that are well inquire the court needed to whether the fail- Commonwealth, versed in the law this ure to constituted ineffective assis- Court’s failure to pro- discuss this section tance of counsel. weight vides at least some additional appellant’s position that the confidential com- issue, analyzing the ineffectiveness munication continues to exist specifically Court applica- did not discuss the cases like Hancharik present and the one. bility § of 23 Pa.C.S.A. 6381 to the facts of guidance Hancharik. direct from our attempts Commonwealth its bolster highest applicability court as to the of 23 § argument by 6381 citation to Common- present 6381 to the factual sce- Arnold, wealth v. Pa.Super. 514 A.2d nario is unavailable. we believe (Pa.Super.1986). Arnold involved that the Court’s failure to discuss this issue proceeding criminal and does pre- discuss the significant. Although normally it is diffi- decessor of allowing thus the Com- positive cult to ascribe a intent from a failure argue monwealth to applica- 6381 has act, in the context of the Hancharik case bility to criminal Despite cases. Arnold’s we believe is notable that the court did not citation to this section agree we cannot upon § call conclude counsel did *7 has the effect the Commonwealth suggests. not render ineffective assistance of counsel. speak We cannot for the panel Arnold Since there no is ineffectiveness when coun- explain why they chose to discuss the section sel fails to to otherwise admissible at issue. we cannot conclude that evidence the court could have ended the inef- the inclusion of a discussion of this section inquiry by simply stating fectiveness that the application necessitates of that section to the communications, despite being confidential present case. At issue in Arnold were incul- wife, between husband and would have been patory by disclosures made a defendant to a anyway admissible under worker, spouse. CYS not to a considering 6381, § § interpretation 6381. This of had it such disclosures we concluded that the state- perceived by the Court to proper be a by ments made the ato CYS work- section, reading of that provided would have er privileged did constitute a communica- simpler a conclusion to the ineffectiveness tion. noted We that a CYS worker acts as inquiry by than the one taken the court. and, investigative an arm of CYS as finding testimony
Instead of the admissible acts on behalf of the Commonwealth. Since court, the while concluding agent that a CYS is an of the Common- worker excludable, properly wealth, evidence was em- branch albeit a different than the office, of slippery slope barked Attorney’s strate- it District is difficult to gy analysis. The Court determined that relationship un- assert that a confidential exists presented der the facts a reasonable any basis privilege for be kind of or that there would variety a made to a CYS dence from of attaching to communications consideration reliability including panel purposes, questions concluded that of Since the worker. Undoubtedly the policy in matters. Common- no communication there was Arnold, guilt they proving not find that of a defendant’s by implication did wealth’s task privi- difficult the rules of evidence predecessor, overrode made more or its Further, relating laws to lege. just regard there no husband-wife as it is with was con- of panel suppression in Arnold even had the search and seizure and evi- case, Nevertheless, applied that rules of evidence that dence. such cluded exist, that it necessarily pertaining have followed laws to search and would not as do specific apply seizure, society, here where there is a in because a free within protecting justice system, section such communications. of our the context criminal we do not Arnold instruc- Consequently, find they promote inter- are deemed serve inquiry before tive to the us. policies are considered rather ests that important. If rules result certain these a application are aware that strict We going seen unpunished offenders it is as a confidentiality privilege the husband-wife necessary society evil that our tolerates might provide harsh result odds seem goals, promote individual freedom or other Although with moral sensibilities. numerous intimacy marriage such as and a sense of appealing arguments advanced for could be security regarding communications one’s policy privi- provision exceptions sympathize spouse.1 although we lege question, presented none in the are they the Commonwealth contend that when empowered and we relevant sections are not may exclusion of the communications make it exceptions valid might carve out that serve very successfully if not impossible difficult policy considerations. Such a function is re- prosecute appellant charges, of the on some or, legislature perhaps, for our our served arguments allow to influence we cannot these Further, although the Supreme Court. analysis our law. The Commonwealth impassioned plea, Commonwealth makes an presents authority suggests no statuto- large part upon logic based in a common law, ry, or even common rules evidence intellectually arguments appeal, moral their prob- in relation to their should construed Many argu- fail. Commonwealth’s ability prosecute able effect on certain essentially equate complaint ments to a and we offenses are unaware cannot obtain conviction on certain supports this thesis. offenses unless communications are ad- surely legislature mitted and could argues that The Commonwealth also cer- not have intended such a scenario. The must lose their tain of communications argument ignores Commonwealth’s the fact privileged status because the communications that the elements of an offense are one mat- activity. comprise Spe- themselves criminal proof ter are and issues and evidence argues that cifically, the Commonwealth are, essence, They proverbi- another. wherein soli- oranges.” al “apples and help up him set citing Kim stepdaughters offenses are their ele- sexual encounter with his can- Criminal defined *8 obligated privileged the communica- and the Commonwealth is not be because ments crime, prove beyond merely not but under the law each element tions are evidence pol- they are themselves. reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence constitute crime We icy fairly by compromises attempt persuaded which not the Commonwealth’s are above, interests, elements of of- weigh competing plea. the desire to have As we stated separate upon decided all the facts rules of are two controversies and fenses and evidence need to certain evi- a rule of evidence perceived exclude matters. Section 5914 is privilege question marriage against pre- during in the need for In reference to the it has trial, principle rationale for pres- ”[t]he been written that evidence at has found sentation privilege preservation of the mony through is the marital har- harmony impor- to be more of marital ervation protection of confidential mar- Evidence, Pennsylvania Packel- tant.” Legislature, after ital communications. The Poulin, (1987). protecting intimacy weighing society's interest in 710 status privileged
and confers
marital what is not a “confidential
in
communication”
communications, makes
exception
it
no
Seitz the court stated:
communications which are themselves crimi
If not made because of the relation of the
Additionally,
nal.
posi
we believe that this
parties and in the confidence
that
which
by
Savage,
policy
tion is refuted
v.
inspires
Commonwealth
relation
and
it is
which
inviolate,
privi-
it is not
(Pa.Super.1997).
A.2d 820
law to hold
leged. Ordinarily might be inferred
it
Savage
we reaffirmed the husband-wife
by
to his
a husband
communications made
confidentiality privilege in the context of a
and in the
wife were made with the intent
robbery
perpetrated
ease
a husband and
mentioned,
the circum-
confidence
but
permitted
wife team. At trial the wife was
of the statement
stances and
nature
testify against
thereby divulging
her husband
repel
presumption
such a
in this case. The
relating
confidential communications
made,...
sought
disclosures
did not
planning
robbery.
and commission of a
On
penitent
relate to the
of a
confession
hus-
appeal we concluded that the communications
band who had confided to his wife the
privileged
were
despite
under
story of
wrongdoing,
but to a boastful
argument
Commonwealth’s
privilege
that the
and defiant declaration of his misconduct
should not extend to these communications
openly persist
his intention to
in his
they
because
were
furtherance of criminal
course, accompanied by insolent and brutal
activity.
argues
The Commonwealth
taunts.
Savage
because,
should not control this case
Id,
certain of the communications were not confi- were addressed to Mrs. and their expectation confidentiality 7.Appellant correctly 5. Since an ais hall- also contends that wife, mark of the one could also read the taped conversations between he and his reasonably Clark decision to mean that one can expect they represent the extent '.‘confidentialcommuni- spouse will not turn him/her his/her cations,” are inadmissible under the dictates of guilt into the authorities when a confession of Wiretap- 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5711. This section of the made. ping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act privileged states that otherwise "[n]o communi- Further, respect charges to the solicitation with, intercepted cation in accordance or in vio- alone, considering Spetzer's statements of, chapter privileged lation shall lose its considering working and not that she was Therefore, character." to the extent there were police appellant, apparent to snare her com- otherwise confidential communica- plicity arrangements in the is similar to the sce- tapes captured question tions on the those Savage nario found in for had she not been communications were inadmissible at trial. working police purported with the involve- ment would have likewise criminal.
713 Hancharik, supra. Like- children, Keri, of counsel. aged ap- tanee Nicholas and two strategy wise, a trial if there was not years old at the even two and one proximately object, ineffec- counsel’s failure to his children were reason for question. Since time only reading of counsel will be found capable of tive assistance extremely young and not Common- or, understanding prejudicial. failure was even where the in all likelihood them Edmiston, 634 aloud, Pa. do 535 the communications wealth v. them if read (1993). prejudice question of confidentiality by virtue of 1078 The A.2d not lose their the admis- By virtue of May, be obvious. to the children. should being them addressed testimony numerous question Spetzer’s of Mrs. there is some sion supra. commentary possibility incriminating statements confidentiality due to the to the not jury which should by presented If being prison read officials. were the letters According to the Common- by being prison read officials have been. the letters were testimony might be argument aware of this then wealth’s appellant only prove some evidence available letters would not be confi- actual text of the it cannot charged. Consequently, expectation he would have no the crimes dential because hand, object reasonably that failure to the other doubted privacy. Id. Ón As extremely prejudicial appellant.8 aspects as to of the letters was Spetzer testified object, ap- meaning only failing reason for having for counsel’s being in “code” during hear- divulgence pellant’s of these trial counsel testified appellant. Her her and letters, never ob- ings post-trial on motions that he even if the letters were aspects of the officials, testimony Spetzer’s because jected violate to Mrs. being prison read testimony was admissible meaning of these he believed the because (N.T. Motions, Post Sentence confidential even if read terms would remain 90). clearly Additionally, Spetzer p. indi- As was demonstrated others. 2/24/97 letters, above, As although ad- was erroneous. of the this assessment cated that some her, object not to was not actually intended for the decision were dressed strategy designed to the letters choice of trial daughter B.G. To the extent conscious her instead, but, le- appellant’s defense be delivered to B.G. advance were intended to of counsel. gally be- ineffective assistance not confidential communications enjoy wife and therefore tween husband and Consequently, these recognized privilege. Allegations
no II. of Ineffective Other letters would be admissible. Assistance of Counsel Appellant further contends objected never
Since trial counsel object failing to testimony was ineffective in relating the con counsel Spetzer’s to Mrs. agree hearsay. must inadmissible We and since fidential communications unobjected hearsay statements went certain challenge of ineffectiveness has leveled clearly prejudicial appellant. to which were address counsel’s failure counsel we must testify instance B.G. was allowed If coun In one prejudice. the matter of appellant had told her sister what for not ob that she strategy trial reason sel had a it had doing to her and her sister said the confidential communications jecting to 37). (N.T. p. happened to her too. reasonably designed to advance 7/23/96 to testi- Kim was allowed In another is no ineffective assis- then there defense divulge when suggests confidential that there was no can 8. The Commonwealth See, Hancharik, because, supra. given appel- applicable. prejudice the content is this section defense, communi- much lant’s argument problem with this is by virtue become admissible cation would have direct, testimony on not on at issue was entered states: ”[I]n of 5915. rebuttal, in before and as such came brought against the husband proceeding criminal Therefore, only does that not the stand. took wife, makes defense at the if the defendant testimony, apply Mrs. not section any grounds which attacks the charac- whether impossible to determine spouse, spouse his or ter or conduct of he had if Mrs. testified as would have competent witness in rebuttal attacked shall be divulged confidences in the numerous not Although specifi- had for the Commonwealth.” cally case-in-chief. stated, Commonwealth’s question in the the attacked presumably so fy that drug- she learned had been It is well established the District At- her,9 (Id., 72), *12 ging appel- torney’s obligation at and also that has an Office to turn over military lant’s commander had stated any to her exculpatory, evidence it comes across problem was a child and he attorney. defendant’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 167). (Id., 305(B). knew had beaten her. keeping In with this rule the D.A.’s Trial presented explanation counsel no for office should have turned letter over to object failing testimony, to the above appellant’s counsel even if it believed Consequently, we can conceive of none. having letter practical little value. Never- opinion, our there was ineffective assistance theless, unsigned the letter and contains failing of counsel in to the state- cryptic no return It address. is also rather question.10 ments in and, large degree, Although to a immaterial. there is a telling people reference .to B.G.
III. Prosecutorial Misconduct that she was not truthful on the witness stand, Appellant further contends that the letter Dis- does not indicate who was Attorney’s prosecutori- trict office committed told this. it is difficult to see how failing al misconduct in to turn over a provision letter of the letter would have advanced any received in its office numerous months before significant the defense in fashion. potentially exculpatory event, trial which had con- any remanding since we shall be a for portion tents. The letter’s most relevant new trial will have the letter at his reads as follows: disposal for retrial. Attorney:
To the District
IV. Severance
case,
In reference to the [B.G.]
[B.] is
telling people
not tell
she did
the truth
Appellant
argues
also
stand, you might
while on the witness
want
court erred in not granting his motion to
past.
look into her Mother’s
I was told
sever trial
the charges.
disagree.
We
family
that while the
was
[G.]
stationed in
of charges
Consolidation
is a matter entrust
Germany, the mother
West
was involved ed
sound discretion of the trial court
military.
with someone in the
When the
appeal
will not be disturbed on
an
absent
man wished
the relationship,
to break off
Lark,
abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v.
willing.
rape
Mother was not
A
(1988).
518 Pa.
Generally
spouse consistently is made with the confi-
dentiality, intimacy secrecy that a Indeed,
marital relationship inspires.
threat magnitude of such a serious is en-
tirely repugnant intimacy to the and confi-
dentiality that a marital union is deemed to inspire.... Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of For similar reasons we conclude that the Appellee, injure direct threats to or kill the wife’s v. family or other members lack Gregory BAKER, Appellant. A. confidentiality necessary the aura of gain privileged many status. cases the Superior Pennsylvania. Court of parental strong instinct is so parent will value the life of a child above their Argued Sept. 1998. injure own. the threat to or kill a Filed Dec. child expected should not be great represents silent and it an affront recipient spouse as to be on par against threats or the
taunts found in Seitz....