Com. v. Jackson, C. ( 2015 )

J-S75018-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTIAN JACKSON
Appellant No. 188 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 13, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011095-2011
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 26, 2015
Christian Jackson appeals from his judgment of sentence, imposed by
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his convictions
for unlawful contact with a minor,1 attempted aggravated indecent assault,2
indecent assault without consent,3 indecent assault of an unconscious
person,4 and corruption of minors.5 Upon review, we affirm.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6318(A)(1).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 901(A).
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(A)(1).
4
18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(A)(4).
5
18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(A)(1)(i).
J-S75018-14
The Philadelphia Police Department began an investigation of Jackson
after receiving a complaint that he molested his half-sister. On September
4, 2013, a jury convicted Jackson of the aforementioned offenses.
Thereafter, the court sentenced Jackson to a total of 5 to 10 years’
incarceration with credit for time served, followed by 7 years of probation.
Jackson was also advised of his obligation to register in accordance with
Megan’s Law6. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Jackson argues that the trial court erred when it allowed
Department of Human Services counselor, Angela Simes, to testify that she
believed the victim and the victim’s father and stepmother. The
Commonwealth, however, argues that Jackson waived his claim and, in any
event, any error with regard to the admission of Simes’ testimony was
harmless.
As a preliminary matter, Jackson failed to object to Simes’ testimony.
N.T. Trial, 8/29/13, at 81. Accordingly, we conclude that Jackson failed to
preserve for appeal his assertion that the trial court improperly permitted
Simes to testify that she believed the testimony of victim and her family
members. See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 855 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2004)
(failure to raise contemporaneous objection to evidence waives claim on
____________________________________________
6
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 – 9799.41.
-2-
J-S75018-14
appeal); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (issues not raised in lower court are waived on
appeal).
Moreover, we note that any error in permitting Simes to testify on
direct examination regarding the result of her investigation was harmless
error. Here, Simes testified that after she spoke with the victim and the
victim’s father and stepmother, she found the abuse allegations were
“indicated.”7 Jackson argues that allowing Simes to testify to her belief in
the veracity of the witnesses’ statements based upon her experience and
education invaded the credibility determination function of the jury. We
disagree. See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super.
1992) (rejecting claim that DHS social worker’s testimony that, after
interviewing victim, an “indicated report” was made, invaded province of
jury).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
7
The term “indicated” is defined in the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL)
as follows:
Indicated report means a report made pursuant to this act if an
investigation by the child protective service determines that
substantial evidence of the alleged abuse exists based on (i)
available medical evidence, (ii) the child protective service
investigation or (iii) an admission of the acts of abuse by the
child's parent or person responsible for the child's welfare.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6301.
-3-
J-S75018-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/26/2015
-4-