Case Information
*1 J-S59033-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA :
v. : : :
RANDALL MAURICE BOWMAN : : Appellant : No. 3793 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 18, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002594-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, and FITZGERALD, [*] JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED OCTOBER 12, 2017
Appellant, Randall Maurice Bowman, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction of simple assault. [1] Appellant alleges the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from cross-examining the victim to impeach her credibility. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth by the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 1/5/17, at 1-6. [2] Appellant raises the following ____________________________________________ [*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. [1] 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). [2] We note that Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal on December 18, 2015, rather than on December 29, 2015, as stated in the trial court’s (Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S59033-17
*2 issue for our review: “Whether the court erred when it refused to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the victim on certain statements she made to [Appellant’s] mother regarding [the victim’s] intention to see that [Appellant] was put in jail, since such testimony had direct bearing on the victim’s credibility.” Appellant’s Brief at 7 (capitalization omitted).
Appellant argues that the jury weighed the credibility of the victim’s testimony more favorably than that of Appellant’s alibi witness due to the trial court’s failure to allow impeachment evidence during defense counsel’s cross-examination of the victim. Appellant contends the cross-examination would have revealed the victim’s prior statements to Appellant’s mother that indicated the victim had a motive to falsely accuse Appellant of assault so he would go to jail. Appellant maintains the court abused its discretion in denying him the opportunity to question the victim about these prior statements. Appellant concludes he is entitled to a new trial. No relief is due.
This Court has held, the scope and limits of cross-examination are within the discretion of the trial court and its rulings will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion or an error of law. Nevertheless, a witness may be cross-examined as to any matter tending to show interest or bias.
(Footnote Continued) _______________________ opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 6. Thereafter, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and Appellant timely complied.
- 2 -
J-S59033-17
*3 Commonwealth v. Mullins , 665 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Pa. Super. 1995) (citations omitted). Regarding cross-examination to show interest or bias, this Court has stated:
Generally, evidence of interest or bias on the part of a witness is admissible and constitutes a proper subject for cross-examination. It is well-settled law that cross- examination directed toward revealing possible bias, interest or motive of a witness in testifying against the defendant is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony.
Commonwealth v. Gentile , 640 A.2d 1309, 1313 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
If the hearing judge errs in disallowing certain cross-examination, such an error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See id. at 1314. Our Supreme Court has stated, “an error can be harmless only if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless.” Commonwealth v. Story , 383 A.2d 155, 162 (Pa. 1978) (footnote omitted). To determine whether an error is harmless, “[t]he uncontradicted evidence of guilt must be so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the improperly admitted evidence [must be] so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Id. at 168. Thus, an error is harmless if “the appellate court determines that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Rush , 605 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1992).
Here, the trial court reasoned: - 3 -
J-S59033-17
*4 Appellant’s claim of error concerns an ostensible desire by the victim in this matter to send [Appellant] to jail to obtain advantage in a custody dispute, the testimonial evidence or statements betraying the victim’s motive to see [Appellant] in jail purportedly post-dated the incident in question. However, the testimony at trial belied any chronic custody dispute. Detailed credible evidence led the Jury to conclude that the victim was assaulted by [] Appellant. The finder of fact did not credit the generalized alibi testimony provided by [] Appellant’s mother. Further, the proposition that the proffered testimony suggesting a motive to fabricate to frame [] Appellant to gain custodial advantage does not logically flow from the assertion that the victim said to [] Appellant’s mother that she wanted to see [] Appellant in jail at some time after the assault at issue. It is too remote, collateral and irrelevant to the disposition of the question of whether [] Appellant assaulted the victim. Any alleged statement by the victim expressing desire to see [] Appellant go to jail [is] not germane to the issues at trial. This court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such testimony on cross- examination.
* * * Appellant’s contention is that the underlying pre-text is that the victim was motivated to fabricate the assault by a custody dispute of some kind. However, [] Appellant did not develop any testimony or evidence of a running custody dispute thereby raising a question of a motive to fabricate. The testimony as a whole suggests that custody was fairly informal and the parties co-parented by an arrangement whereby [] Appellant was permitted to appear at the victim’s residence and babysit and have visitation while the victim attended school and worked part-time. There was also evidence the paternal grandmother rendered some daycare and visitation.
* * * Because [] Appellant failed to articulate any prejudice as the result of this [c]ourt’s exclusion of cross- examination related to any post-incident statement(s) to
- 4 -
J-S59033-17
*5 the effect that the victim wanted to see [Appellant] in jail and further, where this [c]ourt committed no abuse of discretion in excluding the irrelevant cross-examination, [] Appellant’s claim of error lacks merit.
Trial Ct. Op. at 10-11, 12-13 (record citations omitted). Thus, even if the trial court improperly excluded cross-examination of the victim regarding the alleged statements she made to Appellant’s mother following the assault, the error was harmless because it did not prejudice Appellant and the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that any prejudicial effect of the error could not have contributed to the verdict. See Commonwealth v. Melvin , 103 A.3d 1, 20 (Pa. Super. 2014). Detective Edward Silberstein, one of the detectives who responded to the victim’s 911 call, testified that he met with the victim within ten to fifteen minutes after the assault occurred and that she was emotionally upset and had “apparent injuries” that were “consistent with an assault, a punch to the face.” N.T., 9/23/15, at 124. The detective observed that the victim “had a laceration, which was bleeding, to her lip. Her lip was swollen and her tooth was loose. And along her gum line there was apparent blood from bleeding.” Id. at 125-26. The victim provided the detective with a detailed statement of the assault, and the detective took photographs of the victim’s injuries, which were introduced into evidence. Id. at 124, 126. Therefore, combined with the victim’s own testimony, the photographic evidence and testimony of the detective corroborated the victim’s testimony that the assault occurred and
- 5 -
J-S59033-17
*6 overwhelmingly established the Commonwealth’s case. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. PJE Bender joins the Memorandum. Judge Ott Concurs in the Result.
Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/12/2017
- 6 - *7 C i r c u l a t e d [0] [9] / [2] [6] / [2] [0] [1] [7] [0] [4] : [4] [9] P M ' ' I N T H E C O U R T O F C O MM ON P L E A S O F DE L A W A R E C O UN T Y , P � NN S Y L V AN I A - C R I M I N A L D I V I S I O N C O MM O N W E A L T H O F P E NN S Y L V AN I A , N O . 3 7 9 3 E DA 20 15 A P P E L L E E , v . ( N o . C P - 2 3 - CR - 0 0 0 0 25 9 4 - 2 0 1 5 ) R AND A L L M A U R I C E B O W M AN , A P P E L L AN T . C A P P E L L L I , J . D A TE : J a n u a r y 5 , 2 0 1 7
O
P I N I O N T h e D e f e n d a n t , h e r e i n a f t e r , " A p p e ll a n t " , c o n t e n d s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e x c l u d i n g c e r t a i n c r o ss - e x a m i n a t i o n q u e s t i o n i n g c on c e r n i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s p u r p o r t e d p o s t - i n c i d e n t s t a t e m e n t ' s t o t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s m o t h e r t o t h e e ff e c t t h a t v i c ti m i n t e n d e d t o m a k e s u r e t h e A p p e ll a n t w a s pu t i n j a i l .
A p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m · o f e r r o r l a c k s m e r i t . T h e d e f e n d a n t ' s J u d g m e n t o f S e n t e n c e s h o u l d be a ff i r m e d . I. F a c t u a l a n d P roc e d u ra l B a c k gro u n d
O n W e d n e s d ay , F eb r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 a t a pp r o x i m a t e l y 7 ; 2 5 P M t he U p pe r D a r b y po li c e d e p a r t m e n t r e s p o n d ed t o a 9 1 1 c a ll i n t h e a r ea o f B r i ef A ve a n d W e s t C h e s t e r P i k e f o r a d o m e s t i c a s s a u l t . ( N . T . 9 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 , p a g e s 8 8 - 9 1 ) . [1] *8 Upon arrival Officer James Lutz of the Upper Darby Township Police Department located the victim who reported she was assaulted by the father of her child, that is, Appellant, Randall Bowman, inside her vehicle. The victim had visible injuries to her lip and complained of a loose front tooth. (N.T. 9/23/2015, page 97).
At Upper Darby Township Police Headquarters, Detective Edward Silverstein obtained a signed written statement from the victim in reference the a � sault. (N.T. 9/23/2015, page 97).
The victim reported the Appellant punched her in the face· and began choking her for about 2 minutes as they argued inside her car. Appellant yelling at the victim to "shutthe fuck up bitch". The Appellant then broke off the attack and jumped out of the car and fled towards the 69th St. transportation terminal located in Upper Darby Township.(N.T. 9/23/2015, pages 91M95). Digital photographs of the victim's injuries from the assault were obtained at that time.(N.T. 9/23/2015, pages 104-5).
Thereafter on February 14, 2014 the Appellantwas charged with violations of the crimes code including: 18 §2701 §§(A) (1), simple assault, a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree, 18 §2706 §§(A) (1), terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another, a misdemeanor of the first degree, and 18 §2709 §§(A) (1) harassment, a summary offense.
2 *9 T h e J u r y T r i a l i n t h i s m a tt e r p r o cee de d o n Sep t e m b e r 23 , 2 0 1 5 a t w h i c h t i m e ' t h e C o mm o n w e a l t h p r e s e n t e d t he t e s t i m o n y o f t h e v i c t i m a nd t h e i n v e s t i g a t i ng D e t e c t i v e t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e v i c t i m ' s s t a t e m e n t a n d t h e D e t e c t i v e ' s p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e v i c t i m ' s i n j u r i e s . ( N . T . 9 / 2 3 / 1 5 ) .
T h e p o r t i on o f t h e r e c o r d t o w h i c h t he A p p e ll a n t t a k e s i ss u e i s l oc a t e d a t N . T . 9 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 a t p ag e s 1 1 6 - 1 18 , w he r e i n t h e f o ll o w i n g e x c h a n g e o c c u r re d o n t h e r ec o r d :
B y M r . S p r a g ue : Q s o y o u d i d h a v e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h R a n da ll ' s m o t h e r , c o r r ec t ? B y S a b r i n a C r e w s : A y e s . Q y o u ' r e r e l a ti ve l y c l o se t o h e r ? A y e s .
* ** M s . S m i t h ( AD A ): Y o u r H o n o r , I ' m g o i n g t o o b j ec t , r e l e v a n c e . T h e C o u r t : s u s t a i n e d f o r l a s t c o mm e n t . M r . S p r a gu e : p a r d o n ? T h e C o u r t : F o r t h e l a s t c o m m e n t . B y M r . S p r a g u e : 3 *10 A t a n y t i m e d i d yo u t e ll R a n d a ll ' s m o t h e r t h a t yo u w e r e Q g o i n g t o s ee t h a t h e w e n t t o j a il ? · M s . S m i t h : O b j ec t i o n , r e l e v a n c e . T h e C o u r t : S u s t a i n ed . M r . S p r a g u e : M a y I - - T h e C o u r t : S i de b a r ? M r , S p r a gu e : Y e s , Y o u r H o no r . *
*
* ( S i deb a r d i sc u s s i o n ) T h e C o u r t :
G o a h e a d . M r . S p r a gue : . [ i n a ud i b l e ] t h e C o mm o n w e a l t h b r o u gh t i n t o d i r e c t a n d a l s o t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e y a r e i n vo l v e d i n a r e l a t i on s h i p [ i n a ud i b l e ] .
M s . S m i t h : [ i n a u d i b l e ] b e yo n d t h e s c o p e o f d i r e c t . I n e v e r o n c e m e n ti o n m o t h e r . A n d i t ' s h e a r s a y .
T h e C o u r t : w e ll , i t ' s n o t h e a rs a y fr o m [ i n a u d i b l e ] a n d h o w ' s - - I m e a n w h a t ' s t h e p o i n t ? H o w d o e s t h a t - - h o w i s t h a t a de f e n s e
M r . S p r a gu e : [ i n a u d i b l e ] . 4 *11 T h e C o u r t : w h a t ' s you r - - w h e r e y o u g o i n g w i t h it ? W ha t a r e yo u t r y i n g t o · a c c o m p li s h ?
M r . S p r a gu e : [ i n au d i b l e ] - - t h e c o u r t : u m - h u m . M r . S p r a gu e : - - [ i n a ud i b l e ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e i n t e r a c ti on s a f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t . A n d t h a t e ss en t i a ll y t h i s i s a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e a n d [ i n a u d i b l e ] a n d t h a t ' s w h a t i t' s m o ti v a t e d - - ·
M s . S m i t h : t h i s i s t h e w h o l e t h i ng I w as s a y i n g i n t h e b a c k , y o u kn o w . S h e i s h e r e a s a n a li b i w it n e ss , no t t o t a l k a b ou t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d , y o u kn o w [ i n a u d i b l e ] .
S p r a gu e : [ i n au d i b l e ] . M s . S m i t h : I ' m o b j ec t i n g t o h e ar s a y . I ' m j u s t l e tt i n g h i m kn o w n o w - S o - - T h e C ou r t : T h a nk y ou . [ I n aud i b l e ] ho w t h i s r e l a t e s t o t h e a li b i o r [ i n a ud i b l e ] . ( S i d e b a r d i s cu ss i o n c o n c l u d e d ) *
*
* T h e C o u r t : B a c k on t h e r ec o r d . T h e o b j e c ti o n s u s t a i n ed . M o v e o n w i t h q u e s t i o n i n g , p l e a s e .
A f t e r t h e J u r y T r i a l c o n c l u d e d , t h e A p p e ll a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f s i m p l e a ss a u lt , a m i s d e m e a n o r o f t h e 2 nd d e g r e e a n d s e n t e n c e d o n N o v e m be r 1 8 , 2 0 1 5 t o n o l e ss t h a n 1 2 m o n t h s t o n o m o r e t h a n 24 m o n t h s i n c a rce r a t i o n a n d o r d e r e d t o c o m p l e t e a n g e r m a n a g e m e n t c l a s s e s p r i o r t o a ny r e l e ase a n d n o t t o h a v e c o n t a c t [5] *12 w i t h h i s v i c t i m . T h e d e f e n da n t w as n o t RRR 1 e li g i b l e a nd w a s o t h e r w i se t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r u l e s a n d r e gu l a t i on s g o v e r n i n g p r ob a t i o n a n d / o r p a r o l e .
O n D ec e m be r 2 9 , 2 0 1 5 t h e D e f e n da n t f i l e d a t i m e l y N o t i ce of A p p ea l t o t h e P e nn s y l v a n i a S u pe r i o r C o u r t . II . I S S U E
I n h i s c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f e r ro r s c o m p l a i n ed o f o n a p p e a l , A pp e ll an t r a i s e s t h e f o ll o w i n g : T h e c o u r t e r r e d - w h e n i t r e f u s e d t o a ll o w d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o c r o ss - e x a m i n e I. t h e v i c t i m o n c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t s s h e m ad e t o t h e d e f e nd a n t ' s m o t h er r e g a r d i n g h er i n t e n t i on t o s e e t h a t h e w as p u t i n j a il s i n c e s uc h t es t i m o n y h a d d i r ec t bea r i n g o n t h e v i c t i m ' s cr e d i b il i t y . ( S e e N . T . 9 / 2 3/2 0 1 5 a t p a g e s 11 6 - 11 8 ) . ill . AN A L Y S I S
B e s i d e s t h e u n s upp o r t e d a ss e r ti o n t h a t t h i s C ou r t c o mm i tt e d a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n t a n t a m o u n t t o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r i n e x c l ud i n g c e r t a i n c r o ss - e x a m i n a t i on s u r r o un d i ng t he v i c t i m ' s p u r p o r t e d i n t e n t i o n t o s e e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s p u t i n j a il , t h e A p p e ll a n t d o es no t d e v e l o p h i s c l a i m o f e rr o r b e y o nd ar g u i n g t h a t t h e c r o ss - e x a m i n a t i o n w a s i m p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d beca u s e " s u c h t es t i m o n y h a d a d i r e c t b e a r i n g o n t h e v i c ti m ' s c r e d i b i l i t y " .
T h i s c o u r t p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d t h e w h o ll y u n d e v e l o p e d a n d c o ll a t e r a l li n e o f c r o ss - e x a m i n a t i o n b y d e f e n se c ou n s e l i n t o w h e t h e r t h e v i c t i m o f t h e a ll e g e d as s a u l t 6 *13 made post-incident statements to the Appellant's mother to the effect she intended to see that the defendant was put in jail. This court expressly notes the proffered testimony-has marginal, if any; relevance and probity.
Appellant made no effort to create any connection, factual predicate or offer of proof of how such a post-incident statement(s) had any bearing on the likelihood of whether or not the criminal conduct and assault actually took place and that the Appellant was the perpetrator. That is, Appellant does not aver how the excluded evidence would have disproven the Commonwealth's claims or proven the Appellant's alibi defense ·which the trier of fact plainly rejected here.
There was evidence offered by the Commonwealth at trial for the finder of fact to conclude Appellant assaulted the victim as charged. Further, the Jury heard the alibi testiniony and clearly was not persuaded.
The Jury credited the Commonwealth's evidence and found the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of simple assault. Even assuming testimony elicited an admission that sometime after being assaulted, the victim said to the Appellant's mother that she wanted to see Appellant goto jail, that-testimony does not undermine the victim's credibility. That testimony makes no fact of consequence relevant to the assault and the identity of the perpetrator more or less likely. In fact, seeing that the Appellant goes to jail deals with punishment after conviction over which the victim has no control. The Court controls any sentence. [7] *14 A l s o , o n e c o u l d r ea s o n ab l y i n f e r t h a t t h e v i c t i m o f a n as s a u l t w h o w a s a l s o c h o k e d a nd s u s t a i n e d a l ac e r a t e d li p a nd l o o s e n e d t o o t h w o u l d h o n e s t l y w a n t t o s ee h e r ass a il a n t p un i s h e d w i t h i n c a r ce r a ti o n .
T h e s i d e b a r a r g u m e n t by d e f e n s e c o un s e l i n s up p o r t o f t h e e x c l u d e d l i n e o f qu e s t i o n i n g c l ea r l y s h o w s h e i n t e n d e d t o s o m e h o w s u b s t a n t i a t e a n a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e v i c t i m ' s a ll e g a ti on s w e r e d r i ve n b y " a c u s t o d y d i s pu t e a nd . . . [ i n a u d i b l e ] a n d t h a t ' s w h a t i t ' s m o t i v a t e d = - " . ( N . T . 9 / 23 / 2 0 1 5 , p a g e 1 18 ) .
T h e m e r e u n s u p p o r t e d a ss e r t i o n t h a t t h e e x c l u d e d t e s t i m o n y h a s a d i r e c t b ea r i n g o n t h e v i c t i m ' s c r e d i b i li t y i s n e i t h e r p e r s u a s i v e o f a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e ti on n o r o f t h e c o mm i s s i on o f p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r b y t h i s c ou r t .
A ppe ll a n t ' s c l a i m c o nc e r n s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x c l u s i on o f ce r t a i n e v i d e n ce . T h e d e c i s i on t o a d m i t or t o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e li es w i t h i n t h e s o u nd d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . T h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s v e r y n a r r o w ; t h e P e nn s y l v a n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t w ill o n l y r e ve rs e up o n a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c ou r t c l e a r l y a bu s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r c o m m i tt e d a n e rr o r o f l a w . T o c o n s t i t u t e r e v er si b l e e r r o r , a n e v i d e n t i a r y r u l i n g m u s t no t o n l y b e e r r o n e o u s , b u t a l s o h a r m f u l o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o t h e c o m p l a i n i n g p a r t y . C o mm on w e a l t h v . R o be r t s o n , 8 7 4 A . 2 d 2 0 0 , 1 2 09 ( P a . S u p e r . 2 005 ) .
F u r t h e r m o r e , " [ a ] ll r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e i s a d m i ss i b l e , e x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y l a w . E v i d e n c e t h a t i s no t r e l e v a n t i s no t a d m i s s i b l e . " P a . R . E . 4 0 2 . E v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t i f "( a ) it h a s a n y t e n d e n c y t o m a k e a f a c t m o r e o r l e s s
8 *15 p r o bab l e t h a n i t w o u l d be ' w i t h ou t t h e e v i d e n c e ; " a n d " ( b ) t h e f a c t i s o f c o n s e q ue n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a c t i o n . " P a . R . E . 4 0 1 . T h e c o mm e n t t o R u l e 4 0 1 a l s o d i r e c t s t h a t : " W h e t h e r e v i d e n c e h a s a t e n d e n c y t o m a k e a g i ve n f a c t m o r e o r l e s s p r ob a b l e i s t o b e de t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t i n t h e li gh t o f r e a s o n , e x p e r i e n c e , s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l es a n d t h e o t h e r t es t i m o n y o ff e r e d i n t h e c a s e . " P a . R . E . 40 1 . " T h e c o u r t m a y e x c l ud e r e l e va n t ev i de n c e i f i t s p r ob a t i v e va l u e i s o u t w e i gh e d b y a d a n g e r o f o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : un f a i r p r e j u d i c e , c o n f u s i n g t h e i s s u e s , m i s l e a d i n g t h e j u r y , u n d u e d e l ay , w as t i n g t i m e , o r n e e d l e s s l y p r es e n t i n g c u m u l a t i v e e v i d en c e . " P a . R . E . 4 0 3 .
" [ a ] n a c c u s e d h a s a f u n d a m e n t a l r i gh t t o p r e s e n t e v i d en c e s o l o n g as t h e e v i d e n ce i s r e l e v a n t · a n d n o t e x c l ud e d b y a n es t a b li s h e d e v i d e n t i a r y r u l e . " C o m m o n w e a l t h v . W a r d , 5 0 9 , 6 0 5 A . 2 d 796 , 7 9 7 ( P a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c i t i n g C h a m b e rs v . M i s s i s s i p p i , 4 1 0 U . S . 28 4 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) . I n de t e r m i n i n g t h e a d m i ss i b ili t y o f e v i d e n ce , t h e tri a l c o u r t m u s t de c i d e w h e t h e r t h e e v i d en c e i s r e l e v a n t a n d , i f s o , w h e t h er i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e ou t w e i g h s i t s p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t . C o m m o n w e a l t h v . C r e w s , 5 3 6 P a . 5 0 8 , 6 4 0 A . 2 d 3 9 5 ( l 9 9 4 ) ; s ee , e . g . , C o mm o n w ea l t h v . D o ll m an , 51 8 P a . 8 6 , 5 4 1 A . 2 d 3 1 9 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . " E v i d e n ce i s r e l ev a n t i f it l o g i c a ll y t e n d s t o e s t a b li s h a m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e c a s e , t e n d s t o m a k e a f a c t a t i s s u e m o r e o r l e ss p r o bab l e , o r s u p p o rt s a r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e o r p r e s u m p t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t . " C o m m o n w e a lt h v . S p i e w a k , 5 3 3 P a . 1 , 8 , 6 1 7 A . 2 d 6 9 6 , 6 99 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . E v i de n c e t h a t [9] *16 m e r e l y ad v a nce s a n i n f e r e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e , e v e n w h e r e t h e i n f e r e n c e t o b e d r a w n s t e m s o n l y fr o m h u m an e x p e r i e n ce . S e e , e . g . , D o l l m an ( j u r y c o u l d h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d d i s p o s a l o f v i c t i m ' s b o d y a s e v i d e n c i n g c o n s c i ou s n e ss o f gu il t ) ; S e e a l s o , C r e w s , 5 3 6 P a . a t 5 2 3 , 6 40 A . 2 d a t 4 0 2 . C o m m o n w e a l t lt v . H a w k , 70 9 A . 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 ( P a . 1 9 98 ) . " T h e a d m i ss i b i li t y o f e v i d e n c e i s a m a tt e r c o mm i tt e d t o t h e s o un d d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t; an a p pe ll a t e c o u r t m a y r ev e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u li n g o n l y u po n a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " I d .
A p p e ll an t ' s c l a i m o f e n - o r c o n ce r n s a n o s t e n s i b l e d e s i r e b y t h e v i c t i m i n t h i s m a tt e r t o s e n d t h e de f e nd a n t t o j a il t o o b t a i n a d va n t a g e i n a c u s t o d y d i s pu t e , t h e t es ti m o n i a l e v i d e n ce o r s t a t e m e n t s b e t r a y i ng t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t i v e t o s ee t h e d e f e n d an t i n j a il pu r p o r t e d l y p o s t - d a t e d t h e i n c i d e n t i n qu e s t i o n . H o w e v e r , t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l b e li ed a n y c h r o n i c c u s t o d y d i s pu t e . D e t a il ed c r e d i b l e e v i d e n ce l e d t h e Ju r y t o c on c l u de t h a t t h e v i c t i m w a s a ss a u l t e d b y t h e A p p e ll a n t . T h e f i n de r o f f a c t d i d no t c r e d i t t h e g e n e r a l i z e d a l i b i t e s t i m o ny p r ov i d e d b y t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s m o t h e r . ( S e e , N . T 9 / 23 / 20 1 5 , p a g e 1 2 0 , t h e r e w a s n o pe n d i n g c u s t o d y a c i o n / o r d e r ) .
F u r t h e r , t h e p r o p o s it i o n t h a t t h e p r o ff e r e d t e s t i m o ny s u gg e s t i n g a m o t i v e t o f a b r i c a t e t o fr a m e t h e A p p e ll a n t t o g a i n c u s t o d i a l a d v a n t a g e d o e s n o t l o g i c a l l y f l o w fr o m t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e v i c t i m s a i d t o t h e A pp e ll a n t ' s m o t h e r t h a t s h e w a n t e d t o
1 0 *17 s ee t h e A p p e ll a n t i n j a il a t s o m e t i m e a f t e r t h e a s s a u lt a t i ss ue . I t i s t o o r e m o t e , c o ll a t e r a l a n d i rr e l e v a n t t o t h e d i s po s it i o n o f t h e q u e s t i on o f w h e t h e r t h e A p p e ll an t ass a u l t e d t h e v i c t i m . A n y a ll e g e d s t a t e m e n t b y t h e v i c ti m e x p r e s s i n g d e s i r e t o s ee t h e A p p e ll a n t g o t o j a il a r e no t g e r m a n e t o t h e i s s u e s a t t r i a l . T h i s c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i on i n e x c l u d i n g s u c h t e s t i m o n y o n c r o ss - e x a m i n a ti on .
A l t h o u gh t he A p p e ll a n t d i dn ' t d e v e l o p t h e a r g u m e n t a t t r i a l, p r e s u m a b l y e v i d e n c e o f t h e v i c t i m ' s m o t i v e t o f a b r i c a t e w o u l d s u pp o s e d l y m a t e r i a l l y d i s c r e d i t t h e v i c t i m ' s assa u l t s t o r y . A p p e ll a n t c o n t e n ds h e h ad a v i ab l e a l i b i i n t h e f o r m o f h i s m o t h e r ' s t es t i m o n y t h a t h e w a s a t h e r r e s i d e n c e a t t h e p e r t i n e n t t i m e on t h e e ve n i n g t h e i n c i d e n t o ccu r r e d .
A pp e ll a n t ' s a r g u m e n t l a c k s m e r i t beca u s e t h e f a c t f i n de r d e t e r m i n e d fr o m t h e t e s t i m o n y e li c i t e d a t t r i a l t h a t t h e a ss a u l t o cc u rr e d as a r a p i d e s ca l a t i on of a v e r b a l a r g u m e n t t h a t t u r n e d i n t o a do m es t i c a ss a u lt qu i c k l y . T h e v i c t i m t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e v e r b a l a r gu m e n t a r o s e o u t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s u n w ill i n g n e s s t o r e t r i e v e a m e a l f o r t h e v i c t i m f r o m a c r o w d e d G I AN T F o o d S t o r e o n t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e i n c i d e n t i n q u es t i o n . I n t u r n , t h e v i c t i m w h o h a d d r i v e n t h e A p p e ll a n t t o t he G I AN T Fo o d S t o r e t hen h ea d e d f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t e r m i n a l a t 6 9 t h S t r e e t . A l o ng t h e w ay t h e v i c t i m t es t i f i e d t h a t t h e A p p e ll a n t ' s r e m a r k s b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y v u l g a r w h i c h p r o m p t e d t h e v i c t i m t o p u ll - o v e r a n d a s k t h e A p p e l l a n t t o s t e p o u t o f h e r c a r .
*18 1 1 T h e f i n d e r o f f a c t c o u l d a nd d i d c on c l ud e t h a t a v e r b a l a r gu m e n t t h e n t u r n e d p h y s i c a l a f t e r t h e A p pe ll a n t e x i t e d t h e v i c ti m ' s c a r o n l y t o r e - e n t e r a n d p un c h t h e v i c t i m i n t h e f a c e a n d · ch o k e h e r w h e n s h e c a ll e d h i m a " d e a d b e a t " . T he a ss a u l t l a c e r a t e d h e r li p a n d l o o s e n e d h e r t o o t h .
A p p e ll a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e un d e r l y i n g p r e - t e x t i s t h a t t h e v i c ti m w a s m o t i v a t ed t o f a b r i c a t e t h e a ss a u l t by a c u s t o d y · d i s p u t e o f s o m e k i n d . H o w e v e r , t h e A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t d ev e l o p a n y t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e o f a r u nn i n g c u s t o d y d i s p u t e t h e r e b y r a i s i n g a q u e s t i on o f a m o t i v e t o f a b r i c a t e . T h e t e s t i m o n y as a w h o l e s ugg e s t s t h at c u s t o d y w a s f a i r l y i n f o r m a l - a n d t h e p a r t i e s c o - p a r en t e d b y a n a rr a n g e m e n t w h e r e b y t h e A ppe ll a n t w a s p e r m i tt e d t o a pp e a r a t t h e v i c t i m ' s r e s i d en c e a n d b a b y s it a nd - h a ve v i s i t a t i o n w h il e t h e v i c t i m a tt e n d e d s c ho o l a n d w o r k e d p a r t- t i m e . ( N . T . 9 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 5 , p a g e s 8 9 , 11 1 ) . T he r e w a s a l s o e v i d e n c e t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r r e n d e r e d s o m e d a y ca r e a n d v i s i t a t i on . ( N . T . 9 / 23 / 2 0 1 5 , p a g e s 11 4 , 1 2 0 ) .
A p p e ll a n t ' s i s s ue c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g o n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on i s s u b j e c t t o t h e f o ll o w i n g s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w : " T h e s c o pe o f c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i on o f t h e t r i a l c ou r t , a n d w e w ill n o t r e v e r s e t h e tr i a l c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f d i sc r e ti on ill a b s e n c e o f a n a b u s e o f t h a t · d i sc r e t i o n . G e n e r a ll y , e v e r y c i r c u m s t a n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e d i r ec t t e s t i m o n y o f a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s o r r e l a t i n g t o a n y t h i n g w i t h i n h i s o r h e r k n o w l e dg e i s a p r ope r s u b j e c t f o r c r o s s e x a m i n a t i on , i n c l ud i n g a n y m a t t e r w h i c h m i gh t
*19 1 2 qualify or diminish the impact of direct examination." Jacobs v. Chatwani, 922 A.2d 950, 965 (Pa.Super. 2007).
Because the Appellant failed to articulate any prejudice as the result of this Court's exclusion of cross-examination related to any post-incident statement(s) to the effect that the victim wanted to see the defendant in jail and further, where this Court committed no abuse of discretion in excluding the irrelevant cross- examination, the Appellant's claim of error lacks merit.
IV. CONCLUSION
Forall the-foregoing reasons, this Court's decision should be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
r-..,. � '3!) c., =, --.1 1-:;-i,S
c..:.:;. !'""'"'-' � --= � ';<T} J'_s;',i>. (}) 1JB;: z -"7,.,, �
,. ;:•hU'I [01] ! I ' . I 1 t.C,,f.•;; - ( ':"O rt1 ·:---, G'.· .::; � . �� : �
� ; . � ) � -; � c» '• ......... , :._: ... � ::·: " w ©?)
*20 13