He further argues it was the Commonwealth's burden under Rule 106 to demonstrate any misleading impression created by this questioning required admission of other portions of the interview, which it did not. Id. at 41 (citing Commonwealth v. Bryant , 57 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. 2012) ). The Defender Association of Philadelphia ("Defender Association") filed an amicus brief in support of Appellant.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and brackets omitted).
Thus, we conclude this claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 196-97 (Pa. Super. 2012) ("Failure to challenge the weight of the evidence presented at trial in an oral or written motion prior to sentence or in a post-sentence motion will result in waiver of the claim.").
Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 515 A.2d 311, 314 (Pa. Super. 1986) (citation omitted). Further, any person with a duty of care for a child violates that duty by sexually assaulting that child. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Id. at 539.Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012). The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth "need not be absolutely incompatible with defendant's innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the jury unless the evidence 'be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.'"
To prove the defendant's intent, the Commonwealth must establish: (1) that the accused was aware of his or her duty of care; (2) that the accused was aware the child was in threatening circumstances; and (3) that the accused failed to act or took action "so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare." Commonwealth v. Bryant , 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012). Appellant relies heavily on the fact that the Lynn defendant was specifically responsible for handling sex abuse allegations against clergy.
To prove the defendant's intent, the Commonwealth must establish: (1) that the accused was aware of his or her duty of care; (2) that the accused was aware the child was in threatening circumstances; and (3) that the accused failed to act or took action "so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare." Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa. Super. 2012). Appellant relies heavily on the fact that the Lynn defendant was specifically responsible for handling sex abuse allegations against clergy.
Thus, where a party introduces a portion of a writing or recorded statement, Rule 106 permits the adverse party to introduce the remainder so that the fact finder can consider the evidence in context. Commonwealth v. Bryant , 57 A.3d 191, 195 (Pa. Super. 2012) ; Commonwealth v. Passmore , 857 A.2d 697, 712 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied , 582 Pa. 673, 868 A.2d 1199 (2005). The burden is on the adverse party to explain the relevance of the remainder of the recording.
(1) the accused was aware of his duty to protect the child; (2) the accused was aware that the child was in circumstances that could threaten the child's physical or psychological welfare; and (3) the accused has either failed to act or has taken action so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare.Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted). Here, the trial court convicted appellant of EWOC in regards to all three children--L.M., M.M., and A.M. Appellant avers that he was acting within his privilege of a parental figure by physically disciplining the children.
(1) the accused was aware of his duty to protect the child; (2) the accused was aware that the child was in circumstances that could threaten the child's physical or psychological welfare; and (3) the accused has either failed to act or has taken action so lame or meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child's welfare.Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 197 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to obtain a conviction for indecent assault, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had, "indecent contact with the complainant or causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the [defendant], and . . . the complainant is less than 13 years of age."