Commonwealth v. Martin

323 A.3d 807

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania Appellant

v.Michael T. MARTIN, Jr.

No. 791 MDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted October 3, 2022

Filed September 5, 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-28-CR-0002065-2019, Todd M. Sponseller, J.

David A. Frantz, Assistant District Attorney, Chambersburg, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Stephen D. Kulla, Chambersburg, for appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION PER CURIAM:

This matter comes before this Court on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, following its order vacating our June 12, 2023 decision that reversed the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence, and remanding to us for further review. The Commonwealth has appealed from the trial court’s May 13, 2022 order that granted Appellee’s post-sentence motions for discharge and, in the alternative, a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds, and vacated the jury’s August 31, 2021 verdict finding Appellee guilty of involuntary deviate sexual inter-course with a child ("IDSI") and indecent assault,¹ with prejudice. Following our careful review, we reverse the trial court’s order granting discharge, affirm the grant of a new trial, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

An emphasis throughout this matter concerns the timeframe charged by the criminal information and the victim’s testimony regarding the frequency of abuse. The information was filed on January 16, 2020 and alleged that the abuse occurred between September 11, 2013 and June 11, 2014. The relevant facts of this matter, as gleaned from the certified record, are as follows:

The victim, J.K., was fifteen-years old at the time of trial and between seven and eight-years old when the abuse occurred. The abuse allegedly occurred throughout the 2013 school year, when J.K. and her family resided with Appellee, her uncle. The Commonwealth called three witnesses at trial: J.K., her mother (hereinafter "E.A."), and Detective David Rush.

E.A. testified that she, her husband, and her seven children (six daughters and one son),² had to find housing after their home was condemned. Notes of testimony, 8/31/21 at 29. The family had trouble finding a rental property, leading E.A. to ask her sister, Pamela Martin, if she and her family could temporarily move into her home. Ms. Martin agreed.

Appellee was married to Ms. Martin, and the couple had one son. The three lived in a three-bedroom home with two floors.³ The first floor contained a "computer room," a dining room, and kitchen.

The dining room had a staircase leading to the second floor, which contained the three bedrooms and the home’s only bathroom. Appellee and Ms. Martin slept in one of the bedrooms. Id. at 40. One of the other two bedrooms belonged to Appellee’s son, and J.K.’s sole brother moved into that room. Id. E.A. and her then-husband moved into the third and final bedroom. Two of their daughters were "really small" and thus stayed in that room fulltime. Id. at 41. A third daughter would "sometimes" sleep there. Id. J.K. and her sister slept downstairs in the room adjoining the computer room, as would the aforementioned child when not sleeping in E.A.’s room. Id. at 28, 42.

E.A. testified that the family lived with Appellee for the full 2013 school year. J.K. attended the elementary school, which was within walking distance. The school day was approximately 8:40 a.m. to 3:25 p.m. Id. J.K. would leave the home at approximately 8:15 a.m. Id. at 48. Of the four adults, only Appellee was employed. Id. at 46. On days that Appellee worked, he would leave the home around 1:30 p.m. and return around 11:45 p.m. Id. at 48. The parties stipulated to the authenticity of Appellee’s work records, which established that he worked Monday through Friday, starting his shift between 2:15 and 2:30 p.m. Id. at 144, 163. Appellee did not work weekends, and he was absent from work during the periods of December 17 through December 31; January 6 to January 31; and March 10 through March 31. Id. at 164-65. In total, including weekends, Appellee was not at work for 122 days of the nine months that J.K. and her family resided in his home. Id. at 158.

J.K. testified that Appellee would make her perform oral sex on him, "[u]sually in the computer room." Id. at 72. Appellee began sexually abusing her "a couple days into it in the first week" after she moved into Appellee’s home. Id. J.K. testified that nobody else would be present in the room. Id. at 73. The other residents would "[s]ometimes … be upstairs and sometimes they would be in the outside of the house in the back yard." Id. at 75. J.K. said that the incidents "would usually be in the daytime." Id. at 76. On cross-examination, J.K. agreed that in a videotaped statement she said that the abuse happened every day, but clarified that "[i]t happened every other day because sometimes it would be like breaks." Id. at 114. The abuse continued until J.K. "said no the one time and then we moved out shortly after." Id. at 74.

J.K. disclosed the abuse to her two sisters during a party at their home, years after leaving Appellee’s residence. Id. at 123. She testified that some of her sisters and their friends told J.K. "to go upstairs because they wanted to talk. … I was so angry because everyone kept leaving me out of stuff, and it just slipped out because I thought, well, maybe if I said that, then I would actually be included in stuff." Id. at 80. The comment that "slipped out" was J.K. saying to the girls, "Well, has anyone ever asked you to suck their dick for candy?" Id. At the time, J.K. was unaware that two of her sisters had been molested by their stepfather. Id. at 81. The sisters told J.K. that they had been abused and the three girls talked to E.A. Id. E.A. then contacted the authorities and the investigation commenced.

The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case as follows:

[O]n November 16, 2019, in a thirty-minute interview with the same interviewer, J.K. disclosed several incidents of abuse. As a result of her second interview, on November 25, 2019, [Appellee] was charged with one count of [IDSI], a felony of the first degree, and Indecent Assault of a Person Less than 13 Yearsof Age, a felony of the third degree. The offense date listed for each of these offenses is September 11, 2013, although the Commonwealth acknowledges repeatedly, as discussed below, that this date was set arbitrarily.

After numerous continuances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, [a jury] trial on these charges commenced on August 31, 2021, and [Appellee] was convicted. [Appellee] was sentenced on December 15, 2021, to an aggregate sentence of 75 to 150 months in a State Correctional Institution. That same day, [Appellee] filed three [post-sentence] motions. The first was a Motion for Bail Pending Appeal, which was ultimately denied following a hearing. The second and third, filed together as Post Sentence-Motions Filed on Behalf of [Appellee], included the instant Motion Alleging Verdict was Against the Weight of the Evidence and Motion Alleging Verdict was Against the Sufficiency of the Evidence. Oral argument on the instant Motions occurred on February 2, 2022, after which we Ordered the parties to submit briefs. [Appellee] timely submitted his brief on February 11, 2022. The Commonwealth untimely submitted their brief on March 11, 2022, nine (9) days after their deadline set by Order of Court dated February 2, 2022.

On April 6, 2022, [Appellee] filed a Motion Requesting Order of Court Granting Court Extension of Time, requesting that we grant ourselves an additional thirty (30) days to render a decision for good cause[….] We found good cause to have been shown because we had only twenty-four (24) weekdays to render a decision following the filing of the Commonwealth’s brief, which was not sufficient time due to the nature of the Court’s calendar. Therefore, we granted the Motion, extending our deadline to May 14, 2022.

Trial court opinion, 5/13/22 at 2-3 (footnotes, internal citations, and emphasis omitted).

On May 13, 2022, the trial court entered a comprehensive opinion and order granting Appellee’s post-sentence motions. Within this opinion and order, the trial court found the weight and sufficiency of the evidence did not support Appellee’s convictions for IDSI and indecent assault. Therefore, the trial court vacated the jury’s verdict with prejudice.

Specifically, the trial court reasoned that "the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to prove a continuing course of conduct in a case involving the abuse of a young child pursuant to [Commonwealth v. Jette, 818 A.2d 533 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 833 A.2d 141 (Pa. 2003)]." Trial court opinion, 5/13/22 at 1. Alternatively, "even if the Commonwealth had proven a continuing course of conduct," the court concluded that the Commonwealth was not entitled to " ‘the broad leeway’ afforded to them in setting the approximate time and place[.]" Id. Finally, "even if the Commonwealth had proceeded at trial under a theory pursuant to [Commonwealth v. Groff, 378 Pa.Super. 353, 548 A.2d 1237 (1988)]," the trial court determined that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden to provide corroborating evidence. Trial court opinion, 5/13/22 at 1.

The trial court further concluded that a new trial was warranted based on the weight of the evidence, and opined that Appellee is innocent. Id. at 36. As the standard of review for a weight claim does not require reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trial court cited numerous points that warranted granting Appellee a new trial in relation to the credibility of J.K.’s theory. As discussed in the sufficiency analysis, the trial court was convinced that J.K. was untruthful with respect to the frequency of abuse. The trial court...