Opinion
J-S66012-18 No. 4036 EDA 2017
12-19-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HAROLD T. ADAMS Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 4, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003268-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Harold T. Adams, appeals from the amended judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions for rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact with a minor, endangering the welfare of a child, and corruption of a minor. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c), 3123(a)(1), 6318(a)(1), 4304(a)(1), and 6301(a)(1), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth most of the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. We add that, on November 2, 2017, Appellant filed a request to submit supplemental post-sentence motions nunc pro tunc along with supplemental post-sentence motions challenging the sexually violent predator ("SVP") designation. On November 20, 2017, this Court vacated denial of Appellant's post-sentence motions and expressly granted an additional 30 days for the court to rule on the supplemental post-sentence motions. On December 4, 2017, the court granted the supplemental post-sentence motion to strike the SVP designation, denied the motion in all other respects, and entered an amended sentencing order without the SVP designation. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 6, 2017. On December 8, 2017, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on December 21, 2017.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PROSECUTION'S MOTION IN LIMINE LIMITING THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT[?] THE COMPLAINANT ACCUSED HER BROTHER OF SEXUAL ABUSE DURING THE SAME TIME FRAME AS THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST APPELLANT. THIS SAME BROTHER TESTIFIED AT TRIAL. THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HER BROTHER WERE RELEVANT TO SHOW BIAS AND MOTIVE TO FABRICATE. THE ACCUSATIONS WERE PROPER IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT, THE COMPLAINANT'S MOTHER AND THE COMPLAINANT'S BROTHER.
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PROSECUTION'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENSE LINE OF QUESTIONING SEEKING TO ELICIT EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM'S BROTHER WAS BEHAVING POORLY, AND THAT THIS BEHAVIOR LED TO THE BREAKDOWN IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY[?]
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PROSECUTION'S OBJECTION TO THE DEFENSE LINE OF
QUESTIONING SEEKING TO IMPEACH THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT'S MOTHER REGARDING HER MOTIVE AND BIAS IN REGARD TO THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST COMPLAINANT'S BROTHER[?] THE QUESTIONING WAS RELEVANT ON ITS OWN AND BOTH FAIR RESPONSE TO AND COMPLETION OF THE PROSECUTION'S REDIRECT OF THE WITNESS.(Appellant's Brief at 5-6).
WHETHER APPELLANT SHOULD BE AWARDED AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT ON THE CHARGES OF RAPE OF A CHILD, INVOLUNTARY DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CHILD, UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH A MINOR, ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, CORRUPTION OF A MINOR, INDECENT ASSAULT OF A PERSON LESS THAN 13 YEARS OF AGE, AS THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT[?] THE GREATER WEIGHT DID NOT SUPPORT ANY PROPOSITION FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY AS A PRINCIPAL, AN ACCOMPLICE OR A CONSPIRATOR AND THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT ANY FINDING OF SPECIFIC INTENT, AND, HENCE, A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED. THE VERDICT WAS BASED ON SPECULATION, CONJECTURE AND SURMISE.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Donna M. Woelpper, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed April 27, 2018, at 3-7) (finding: (1-3) contrary to Appellant's claims, court permitted Appellant to question Victim about allegations she had made against her brother and about Victim's failure to disclose Appellant's abuse when she reported her brother; other than for purposes of this line of questioning, evidence that Victim had accused her brother of—and that he had admitted—inappropriately touching Victim was irrelevant to allegations against Appellant; Victim's allegations against her brother were unrelated to Appellant's sex acts on Victim and did not serve in any way to exculpate Appellant; court permitted Appellant to ask Victim if she recalled her mother and Appellant arguing about her brother between time Victim disclosed Appellant's abuse and time Appellant moved out of family home; Victim said she did not recall argument; court also allowed Appellant to question Victim's mother directly about reason(s) her relationship with Appellant ended; court further permitted Appellant to ask Victim's brother about why Appellant left family home and specifically whether Victim's mother and Appellant had argued about Victim's brother's behavior; thus, Appellant's evidentiary challenges merit no relief; (4) Victim testified about 4 specific incidents in which Appellant either forced her to perform sex acts on him or forcibly performed sex acts on her; jury found Victim's testimony credible; verdict was hardly shocking and not against weight of evidence). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/19/18
Image materials not available for display.