Com. v. Plowman, A. ( 2019 )

J-S20031-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ALEX STRANGE BUDD PLOWMAN :
:
Appellant : No. 1364 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 28, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0001816-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 06, 2019
Appellant, Alex Strange Budd Plowman, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas, following his
jury trial convictions for rape of a child, aggravated indecent assault, statutory
sexual assault, indecent assault, sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a
child (“EWOC”), unlawful contact with a minor, and corruption of minors.1 We
affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
In 2015, Appellant began living with his girlfriend and her minor daughter,
A.B.H. (“Victim”), who was approximately three years old at the time.
Between late summer 2016 and June 29, 2017, Victim thrice indicated to her
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c); 3125(a)(7); 3122.1(b); 3126(a)(7); 3124.1;
4304(a)(1); 6318(a)(1); and 6301(a)(1)(ii), respectively.
J-S20031-19
mother that Appellant had touched her vagina and butt with his hands and
penis on several occasions. On June 29, 2017, Victim’s mother took Victim to
the hospital for examination and contacted law enforcement about the alleged
sexual abuse. During the investigation into the sexual abuse allegations
against Appellant, Ashley Domiano, a forensic interviewer, conducted and
video recorded a forensic interview of Victim on July 25, 2017. That same
day, Dr. Rachel Schwab performed a forensic medical exam on Victim.
On August 8, 2017, the Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint
against Appellant. The Commonwealth filed a motion in limine on March 9,
2018. Through its motion, the Commonwealth sought to introduce: (i)
Victim’s trial testimony via an alternative method; (ii) statements Victim made
to her mother and to Ms. Domiano during the forensic interview; and (iii)
expert testimony of Ms. Domiano and Dr. Schwab. Subsequently, the
Commonwealth provided Appellant notice it also sought to introduce the
expert testimony of Dr. Veronique Valliere, a forensic psychologist, and a
document reflecting Dr. Valliere would testify about sexual abuse victim
behavior. On April 10, 2018, Appellant filed a response to the
Commonwealth’s motion in limine. In his response, Appellant made a broad
request for Frye2 hearings on Ms. Domiano’s and Dr. Valliere’s proposed
expert testimony; Appellant did not elaborate upon or provide rationale for his
____________________________________________
2 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
-2-
J-S20031-19
request. Later, the Commonwealth substituted Dr. Valliere with Dr. Barbara
Ziv, and provided Appellant an expert report of Dr. Ziv. The expert reports
for Dr. Valliere and Dr. Ziv were comparable and each consisted of a
memorandum describing the effects of sexual victimization of children.
On April 25, 2018, the court conducted a hearing on the
Commonwealth’s motion in limine. At the hearing, Victim’s mother testified
about three different conversations she had had with Victim, during which
Victim reported Appellant had abused her. Additionally, Appellant objected to
the admission of the expert report of: (i) Dr. Ziv, as overly-broad; and (ii) Dr.
Valliere, because the Commonwealth indicated she would not be testifying at
trial. The court admitted both reports over Appellant’s objections. Appellant
also objected to Dr. Ziv’s and Ms. Domiano’s qualifications as expert witnesses
and asked the court to conduct Frye hearings as to both witnesses. Appellant
generally claimed the proposed testimony of Dr. Ziv and Ms. Domiano would
fail the Frye standard. The court accepted the expert qualifications of both
Dr. Ziv and Ms. Domiano and declined to hold a Frye hearing as to either
witness. The court subsequently granted the Commonwealth’s motion in
limine via an order dated April 25, 2018, and entered May 2, 2018.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on May 1, 2018. On May 3, 2018,
the jury convicted Appellant of two counts each of rape of a child, statutory
sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault,
EWOC, and one count each of unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of
-3-
J-S20031-19
minors. The court sentenced Appellant on August 31, 2018, to an aggregate
term of twenty-seven (27) to fifty-four (54) years’ imprisonment, plus five (5)
years’ probation. Additionally at sentencing, the court notified Appellant of
his requirement to register and report for life as a Tier III sex offender under
the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). On
September 20, 2018, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court
ordered Appellant on October 25, 2018, to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely
complied on October 31, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR[] IN PERMITTING TESTIMONY
VIA CONTEMPORANEOUS ALTERNATE METHOD FOR
VICTIM…, AS WELL AS ERRING IN THE NOTICE OF
REQUIREMENTS UNDER 42 PA.C.S.A. 5985.1(B)[?]
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR[] IN PERMITTING THE
FORENSIC INTERVIEW AND STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO 42
PA.C.S.A. § 5985.1(A)[?]
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR[] IN ALLOWING
COMMONWEALTH EXPERT IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY AND
VICTIM’S RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ABUSE; FORENSIC
MEDICAL EXAMINER AND FORENSIC INTERVIEWS[?]
(Appellant’s Brief at 25).
The standard of review for admission of evidence is as follows: “The
admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a
showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes
reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98, 80 A.3d
-4-
J-S20031-19
380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940, 134 S.Ct. 2842, 189 L.Ed.2d
824 (2014).
The term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion,
within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion
must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed
to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary
actions. Discretion is abused when the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not
applied or where the record shows that the action is a result
of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.
Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 878-79 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 624 Pa. 672, 85 A.3d 482 (2014). “To constitute reversible error, an
evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial
to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 81
(Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 619 Pa. 678, 62 A.3d 379 (2013).
“Hearsay” is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted. Pa.R.E. 801(c). Generally, hearsay testimony
is inadmissible at trial. See Pa.R.E. 802. “The tender years exception allows
for the admission of a child’s out-of-court statement due to the fragile nature
of young victims of sexual abuse.” Commonwealth v. Kriner, 915 A.2d 653,
657 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fink, 791 A.2d 1235,
1248 (Pa.Super. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Tender Years
Exception to the hearsay rule provides:
§ 5985.1. Admissibility of certain statements
-5-
J-S20031-19
(a) General rule.—An out-of-court statement made by
a child victim or witness, who at the time the statement was
made was 12 years of age or younger, describing any of the
offenses enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. Chs. 25 (relating to
criminal homicide), 27 (relating to assault), 29 (relating to
kidnapping), 31 (relating to sexual offenses), 35 (relating to
burglary and other criminal intrusion) and 37 (relating to
robbery), not otherwise admissible by statute or rule of
evidence, is admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil
proceeding if:
(1) the court finds, in an in camera hearing, that the
evidence is relevant and that the time, content and
circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia
of reliability; and
(2) the child either:
(i) testifies at the proceeding; or
(ii) is unavailable as a witness.
(a.1) Emotional distress.—In order to make a finding
under subsection (a)(2)(ii) that the child is unavailable as a
witness, the court must determine, based on evidence
presented to it, that testimony by the child as a witness will
result in the child suffering serious emotional distress that
would substantially impair the child’s ability to reasonably
communicate. In making this determination, the court may
do all of the following:
(1) Observe and question the child, either inside or
outside the courtroom.
(2) Hear testimony of a parent or custodian or any other
person, such as a person who has dealt with the child in
a medical or therapeutic setting.
(a.2) Counsel and confrontation.—If the court hears
testimony in connection with making a finding under
subsection (a)(2)(ii), all of the following apply:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the defendant,
the attorney for the defendant and the attorney for the
-6-
J-S20031-19
Commonwealth or, in the case of a civil proceeding, the
attorney for the plaintiff has the right to be present.
(2) If the court observes or questions the child, the court
shall not permit the defendant to be present.
(b) Notice required.—A statement otherwise
admissible under subsection (a) shall not be received into
evidence unless the proponent of the statement notifies the
adverse party of the proponent’s intention to offer the
statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently
in advance of the proceeding at which the proponent intends
to offer the statement into evidence to provide the adverse
party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the
statement.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1.
“Any statement admitted under the [tender years hearsay exception]
must possess sufficient indicia of reliability, as determined from the time,
content, and circumstances of its making.” Commonwealth v. O'Drain, 829
A.2d 316, 320 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1(a)). “The main
consideration for determining when hearsay statements made by a child
witness are sufficiently reliable is whether the child declarant was particularly
likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made.” Commonwealth
v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 255 (Pa.Super. 2003). Factors the court may
consider when determining reliability include, but are not limited to, “the
spontaneity of the statements, consistency in repetition, the mental state of
the declarant, use of terms unexpected in children of that age and the lack of
a motive to fabricate.” Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 578 Pa. 641, 675,
855 A.2d 27, 47 (2003); Lyons, supra.-7-
J-S20031-19
“The Tender Years Statute [also] requires that an in camera hearing
take place to determine whether a child witness is unavailable to testify.” Id.at 254 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A § 5985(a)). Nevertheless, “prior to concluding a
child witness is unavailable, a court must determine whether forcing the child
to testify will result in such serious emotional distress to the child that [the
child] will not be able to reasonably communicate.” Id.; 42 Pa.C.S.A §
5985(a.1). “To reach this determination, the court ‘may’ either question the
child witness or hear testimony of a parent or person who has dealt with the
child in a therapeutic setting.” Id. at 254-55; 42 Pa.C.S.A § 5985(a.1)(1)-
(2). “[T]here is no other manner, method, procedure, or definition of what
constitutes unavailability.” Kriner, supra at 659.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Hiram A.
Carpenter, III, we conclude Appellant’s first and second issues merit no relief.
The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
first two questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 2, 2018, at
2-8) (finding: (1) at hearing on Commonwealth’s motion in limine, Victim’s
mother testified Appellant’s presence would significantly impair Victim’s ability
to testify; Victim’s mother said Victim appears nervous to point of almost
being in panic if she hears reference to Appellant’s name or Appellant’s
conduct toward Victim; Victim’s mother explained she did not believe Victim
could communicate effectively, or at all, if Appellant were present; that Victim
-8-
J-S20031-19
communicated without issue to forensic examiner about Appellant’s actions
does not mean Victim would similarly testify at trial; concerning Appellant’s
right of confrontation, balance of interests weighs in favor of permitting Victim
to testify via contemporaneous alternative method; Appellant suffered no
prejudice from Commonwealth’s failure to provide Appellant notice before
hearing of Victim’s statements to her mother which Commonwealth sought to
introduce; Appellant cross-examined Victim’s mother at motion in limine
hearing; (2) record established forensic interviewer, Ms. Domiano, had
significant experience interviewing child victims of sexual abuse; Victim spoke
to Ms. Domiano openly, with descriptive language in neutral environment; Ms.
Domiano’s questioning of Victim did not indicate Victim had been coached;
many defenses Appellant may have wished to raise at trial would require
introduction of Victim’s statements to Ms. Domiano and her mother;
introduction of Victim’s statements promotes fair trial). The record supports
the trial court’s rationale. See Ballard, supra. Accordingly, as to Appellant’s
issues one and two, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
In his third issue, Appellant contends Dr. Schwab’s testimony was
irrelevant. Appellant submits Dr. Schwab’s conclusion that Victim’s forensic
examination “neither confirms nor rules out sexual abuse” did not tend to
prove or disprove Appellant sexually abused Victim. Appellant also maintains
the Commonwealth did not provide Appellant with an expert report of Dr. Ziv.
Appellant claims the Commonwealth provided him, instead, a summary of the
-9-
J-S20031-19
proposed testimony of Dr. Valliere to represent Dr. Ziv’s intended testimony.
Appellant posits the court should have conducted a Frye hearing regarding
Dr. Ziv’s testimony. Appellant asserts 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5920 does not obviate
the need for a Frye hearing regarding proposed expert testimony on sexual
abuse victim response. Appellant insists Dr. Ziv’s testimony fails to satisfy
Frye. Appellant concludes this Court should vacate the judgment of sentence
and grant a new trial. We disagree.3, 4
Relevance is the threshold for admissibility of evidence.
Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 602, 952 A.2d 594, 612 (2008).
Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Pa.R.E. 401.
____________________________________________
3 To the extent Appellant purports to challenge the court’s admission of Ms.
Domiano’s expert testimony, Appellant failed to include in his brief any
discussion of Ms. Domiano. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); Commonwealth v.
Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 703, 940
A.2d 362 (2008) (stating: “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments
that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the
claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with
citations to legal authorities. … This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant”). Therefore, Appellant’s claim
regarding Ms. Domiano’s expert testimony is waived, and we give it no further
attention.
4 To the extent Appellant attempts to argue Section 5920 is unconstitutional
under Frye, Appellant’s claim is waived because he raises it for the first time
on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (explaining general rule that issues not
raised before trial court are waived and cannot be raised for first time on
appeal).
- 10 -
J-S20031-19
“Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case,
tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable
inference or presumption regarding a material fact.” Commonwealth v.
Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 135, 808 A.2d 893, 904 (2002), cert. denied, 539
U.S. 919, 123 S.Ct. 2284, 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003).
Section 5920 governs the admissibility of expert testimony regarding
sexual abuse victim response and behavior, and states in relevant part:
§ 5920. Expert testimony in certain criminal
proceedings
* * *
(b) Qualifications and use of experts.—
(1) In a criminal proceeding subject to this section, a
witness may be qualified by the court as an expert if the
witness has specialized knowledge beyond that
possessed by the average layperson based on the
witness’s experience with, or specialized training or
education in, criminal justice, behavioral sciences or
victim services issues, related to sexual violence, that will
assist the trier of fact in understanding the dynamics of
sexual violence, victim responses to sexual violence and
the impact of sexual violence on victims during and after
being assaulted.
(2) If qualified as an expert, the witness may testify to
facts and opinions regarding specific types of victim
responses and victim behaviors.
(3) The witness’s opinion regarding the credibility of any
other witness, including the victim, shall not be
admissible.
(4) A witness qualified by the court as an expert under
this section may be called by the attorney for the
Commonwealth or the defendant to provide the expert
- 11 -
J-S20031-19
testimony.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5920(b). Recently, this Court addressed the intersection of
Frye and Section 5920 in Commonwealth v. Cramer, 195 A.3d 594(Pa.Super. 2018). This Court explained:
When reviewing challenges to the admission of expert
testimony, we leave such decisions “largely to the discretion
of the trial court, and its rulings thereon will not be reversed
absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v.
Watson, 945 A.2d 174, 176 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citation
omitted).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence govern the admission of
expert witness testimony. Our Supreme Court has held
that, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 702, Pennsylvania courts must
apply the Frye test in determining whether to admit novel
scientific evidence in a criminal trial. Commonwealth v.
Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1090-91 (Pa. 2017).
The General Assembly, when enacting 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] §
5920, did not purport to address or alter the applicability of
Frye or Pa.R.E. 702(c). Section 5920 only addresses
the relevancy of this expert testimony, and not (i)
whether the expert’s conclusions are novel, and (ii)
whether the methodology used to arrive at his or her
conclusions is generally accepted. Section 5920 is
silent on the issue of whether the proponent of an
expert witness who testifies about different
responses of victims to sexual violence must first
demonstrate that the expert’s conclusion is not novel
or whether the novel conclusion is based on
“methodology [that] is generally accepted in the
relevant field.” Pa.R.E. 702(c). Insofar as the parties
dispute whether trial courts should continue to apply
Frye and Pa.R.E. 702 to this Section 5920 expert
testimony, we hold that they do apply. A trial court
must treat an expert who testifies pursuant to Section
5920 as it treats any other expert. Otherwise, there is
no way to ensure that an expert’s opinion is based on a
generally accepted methodology. Thus, we proceed with
our Frye analysis.
- 12 -
J-S20031-19
This Court has explained that scientific evidence is “novel”
when “there is a legitimate dispute regarding the reliability
of the expert’s conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Safka, 95
A.3d 304, 307 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation and quotation
omitted). To be admissible at trial, the methodology
underlying the novel scientific evidence “must have gained
general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.”
Commonwealth v. Powell, 171 A.3d 294, 307 (Pa.Super.
2017).
A trial court is not required to conduct a Frye hearing any
time a party seeks to introduce scientific evidence. “Rather,
a hearing is warranted only when the trial court has
articulable grounds to believe that an expert witness has not
applied accepted scientific methodology in a conventional
fashion in reaching his or her conclusions.” Jacoby[,
supra] at 1091.
A party opposing the scientific evidence must demonstrate
that the expert’s testimony is based on novel scientific
evidence, i.e., “that there is a legitimate dispute regarding
the reliability of the expert’s conclusions.” Safka[, supra]
at 307. “If the moving party has identified novel scientific
evidence, then the proponent of the scientific evidence must
show that the expert’s methodology has general acceptance
in the relevant scientific community despite the legitimate
dispute.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). See also
Jacoby[, supra] at 1091; Powell[, supra] at 307
(rejecting claim that Commonwealth, the proponent of
expert testimony, had the initial burden and explaining that
a defendant opposing such testimony had the burden of
showing the testimony was based on novel scientific
evidence in order to proceed to a Frye hearing).
Cramer, supra at 605-07 (emphasis added).
In Cramer, this Court considered whether the trial court should have
conducted a Frye hearing, where the defendant claimed the Commonwealth’s
proposed expert witness’ testimony on sexual abuse victim behavior and
response was not “grounded in peer-reviewed, empirical studies, was
- 13 -
J-S20031-19
scientifically unreliable, and did not rest on any empirically verified research.”
Id. at 607 (some internal quotation marks omitted). The Cramer Court
determined a Frye hearing was unnecessary, because the defendant’s general
challenge to the proposed expert testimony did not raise “articulable grounds”
that the proposed expert witness had applied scientifically unreliable methods
to reach the expert’s conclusions; the defendant “failed to make an initial
showing that [the proposed] expert testimony was based on novel scientific
evidence.” Id.
Instantly, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the expert testimony
of, inter alia, Dr. Schwab, a medical examiner, and Dr. Ziv, a forensic
psychologist. Prior to the motion in limine hearing, the Commonwealth: (i)
provided Appellant an expert report for Dr. Valliere, the forensic psychology
expert the Commonwealth initially intended to introduce; (ii) substituted Dr.
Valliere with Dr. Ziv; and (iii) provided Appellant an expert report for Dr. Ziv.
During the motion in limine hearing, the trial court accepted the expert reports
of both Dr. Ziv and Dr. Valliere, both of which were very similar and indicated
each witness would testify about sexual abuse victim response and behavior,
generally. Additionally, the trial court denied Appellant’s broad request for a
Frye hearing regarding Dr. Ziv’s proposed expert testimony, and permitted
the Commonwealth to introduce Dr. Ziv’s expert testimony at trial.
In its opinion, the trial court addressed its admission of the expert
testimony of Dr. Schwab and Dr. Ziv, as follows:
- 14 -
J-S20031-19
In its motion the Commonwealth offers two expert
witnesses who are intended to be called at trial.
Additionally, at our hearing the Commonwealth noticed a
third expert[, Dr. Ziv,] not noted in their motion in the
person of a designated forensic psychologist who would
provide expert testimony generally to educate the jury
regarding the process of disclosure in child abuse cases and
the factors impacting a child’s relationship with the
perpetrator. That expert would also provide education
regarding victim behaviors and the related dynamics of
trauma and impact of abuse. This testimony is offered
neither to bolster victim credibility nor to comment on this
particular case with any specificity. Rather, it is introduced
to generally educate the jurors to dispel certain perceived
myths and misinformation in the areas of sexual abuse
generally, victim’s disclosure, and victim’s behaviors. …
* * *
With respect to the offer of a medical examiner[, Dr.
Schwab,] to testify regarding the physical examination of
the child, the defense objection is stated with more
specificity. Here the defense objects to the expert’s
proffered testimony (apparently based on the medical
report) which suggests that a physical exam “neither
confirms nor rules out sexual abuse”.
Having considered that objection, we believe the testimony
is appropriate and, in fact, represents the current state of
the medical community’s ability to particularize whether or
not abuse has occurred. Obviously, physical findings are
significant and the absence of any physical findings is
appropriately noted and argued by the defense. However,
to take the position that the absence of physical findings
means that no abuse has occurred is to deny this [c]ourt’s
experience as to the limitations of physical examinations as
we have observed them over twenty-nine years in other
cases.
Finally, the defense objects to the newly raised offer by the
Commonwealth of an expert in the field of forensic
psychological expert testimony. We have reviewed the
applicable law in this area and especially the decision of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of
- 15 -
J-S20031-19
Commonwealth v. [Olivo], 127 A.3d 769 (2015). Based
on our reading of [Olivo], we believe that this testimony is
clearly admissible although it will be our intention at trial to
be mindful of setting appropriate limits. As characterized in
the report provided[,] this testimony is designed to be
educational testimony which does not bolster…[V]ictim’s
credibility but rather educates the jurors generally.
Accordingly, specific references to the case at issue in a
situation where the expert did not interview [Victim],
[Victim’s] mother, or any of the principles should be (and
will be) restricted to general questions. With this limitation
in place, we believe this expert is appropriately offered
under Pennsylvania law and, accordingly, we will permit the
testimony.
* * *
(Trial Court Opinion at 10-13). The trial court correctly determined Dr.
Schwab’s testimony, that Victim’s physical exam “neither confirms nor rules
out sexual abuse,” was relevant and admissible evidence. Dr. Schwab’s
testimony suggested it was possible Victim suffered sexual abuse even though
Victim exhibited no physical evidence of sexual abuse on her body. This
testimony went to establish the likelihood Appellant sexually abused Victim,
and was therefore relevant. See Drumheller, supra.We depart, however, from the trial court’s rationale regarding its
admission of Dr. Ziv’s testimony. The trial court interpreted Olivo as
providing that a Frye hearing is unnecessary for a proposed expert on sexual
abuse victim response behavior, because such expert testimony is admissible
under Section 5920. While Appellant’s case was pending on appeal, however,
this Court in Cramer held that Section 5920 does not obviate the need for a
Frye hearing; Section 5920 merely provides that Section 5920 expert
- 16 -
J-S20031-19
testimony is relevant in the context of criminal allegations of sexual abuse.
See Cramer, supra at 605-06. The Cramer Court added that a Frye hearing
on proposed Section 5920 expert testimony is necessary but only if the party
opposing the expert witness raises articulable grounds that the expert’s
testimony would be inadmissible under Frye. Id. at 606.
In the instant case, Appellant made bald claims that Dr. Ziv’s testimony
would fail the Frye standard; Appellant provided the trial court no rationale
to support that conclusion. Appellant’s demand for a Frye hearing was
inadequate, particularly in light of Cramer, which held a challenge to a
proposed expert witness did not warrant a Frye hearing, if the opponent
raised only general claims but failed to make an initial showing that the
expert’s testimony was based on novel scientific theories. See id. at 607.
Like the defendant in Cramer, Appellant first failed to provide “articulable
grounds” to call Dr. Ziv’s conclusions into question; instead Appellant made
only a broad request for a Frye hearing. See id. Therefore, no Frye hearing
on Dr. Ziv’s proposed expert testimony was warranted. See id. Accordingly,
we affirm. See Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708, 727 (Pa.Super.
2011) (en banc) (stating we may affirm on any basis if trial court’s decision
was correct).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- 17 -
J-S20031-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/6/2019
- 18 -
Circulated 07/11/2019 04:54 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs. :CR 1816-2017
ALEX STRANGE BUDD PLOWMAN,
DEFENDANT
HONORABLE HIRAM A. CARPENTER, III
NICHOLE SMITH, ESQUIRE
THEODORE J. KROL, ESQUIRE
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Corrunonwealth's
Motion in Limine filed March 9, 2018. The defense response to
the Corrunonwealth's Motion in Limine was filed on April 10, 2018.
We heard the matter to a conclusion on Wednesday, April 25,
2018. All issues raised in the Motion in Limine are ripe for
resolution. We �ill address them in the order in which they
were raised by the Commonwealth in their motion.
MOTION TO PERMIT -TESTIMONY VIA CONTEMPORANEOUS
ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR VICTIM A.B.H.
In its motion, the Corrunonwealth proposes that this Court
impose a set of conditions relative to the testimony of the
alleged victim, A.B.�., whereby spectators in the room where the
child would testify wouict be limited to essential staff,
counsel, the aff°iant, and a comfort person for the child victim.
1
�-ct A, s
All of this is consistent as provided in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 598� which
provides for testimony by contemporaneous alternative method
statutorily. At our hearing of April 25, 2018, the Commoriwea L th
presented the testimony of the victim's mother in support of the
request for testimony via alternative method. The mother
testified essentially that she (the mother) was satisfied that
testifying in the presence of the Defendant would, in fact,
significantly impair the ability of this five-year-old child to
present her testimony. Specifically, the mother testified that
the child appears nervous to her if the Defendant's name or
situation is raised which can approach what the mother describes
as almost "panic". The mother does not believe the child can
communicate effectively in a room where the Defendant is present
and might, in'fact, clam up and not say an�thing. This is
before we even reach the question of this very tender aged
child's ability to testify in front of the fourteen adults which
comprise the jury, the judge, and a courtroom that is open to
the public and additional spectators. The mother added that her
daughter is "more scared" now that she is educated to the fact
that the things the Defendant was doing to her were "bad
things".
In response, the defense noted that notwithstanding its
objection to the admission of the statement which the child made
2
to Ashley Damiano (her forensic interviewer) that Ms. Damiano
indicated that the child•s presentation in front of her was
"open and articulate" and that she was able to describe the
Defendant's claimed behavior toward her in con$iderable detail;
including a drawing. (See Commonwealth's Exhibit #2).
According to Ms. Damiano, the victim was talkative and without
any apparent reservations. Further, the defense argued. that the
mother's testimony in support of the alternative method of
tes�ifying went beyond statements which the defense had received
and that the defense was prejudiced, by this in preparation for
trial generally. This is especially true where the Commonwealth
in their motion indicated the defense would be provided at or
about the time of the filing of this motion on March 9, 2018 a
lettei to defense counsel containing the particular statements
made to the mother which the Commonwealth is seeking to
introduce pursuant to the Tender Years Hearsay Doctrine (See
Paragraph 17 of the Motion). This letter was apparently never
sent.
Further, the defense invokes the Sixth Amendment right of
confrontation offering to the Court its view that under the
particular circumstances of this case the Defendant's right to
confront the child victim is unduly restricted by the Court
employing the alternative method of contemporaneous testimony.
3
Having considered the arguments, we believe the Motion fox:
Contemporaneous Alternative Method should be, and is, granted.
In so holding, we note that notwithstanding this five-year-
old child's ability to recount the events as perceived by MB.
Damiano during the forensic interview, we cannot help but
conclude that this interview (which occurred in July 2017) is
�ancient" ir1 terms of the development of this case. Testifying
at trial for a six-year-old is a far different matter·than an
interview before an. expert interviewer whose expertise lies in
facilitating the interview and making it as easy as possible.
This is exactly the opposite of a courtroom situation where the
reverse would be true.
'
As to any perceived prejudice, while we note the additional
offer of proof relative to the mother's testimony of likely
trial testimony was not followed through, per Paragraph 17 as
noted above, the defense now has the considerable advantage of
hearing the mother's actual testimony one week before trial
including an opportunity to cross examine it (a much more
powerful tool than receiving a letter which would simply be an
offer and not necessarily limited to the contents of the letter
in any event). The defense now has a proceeding of record with
cross examination. We further note Attorney Krol is an
extremely experienced defense attorney in our bar. With this
4
opportunity a week before trial: we do not see him as
particularly disadvantaged (although we certainly do not. endorse
the Commonwealth's failure not to provide the information) .. In
fairness, we acknowledge .this probably happened because there
was a change in the District Attorney's handling the case and
the promised submission to Mr. Krol was simply "lost" in the
transfer.
Finally, with respect to the right of confrontation, we are
satisfied by allowing the testimony by contemporaneous
alternative method when weighing the age of this child and
possible traumatic impact versus the perceived difficulty of a
child this age testifying in the formal situation which a
courtroom represents and given defense counsel will be present
with an opportunity to question the child we do not see the·
Defendant's rights being violated to such an extent that this
motion is inappropriately granted. Simply put, balancing the
competing considerations of the alternate method of testimony
versus the right of confrontation we find the balance favors the
contemporaneous alternative method and decidedly so.
MOTION TO INTRODUCE FORENSIC INTERVIEW AND VICTIM
A.B.H.'S STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A 5985.l(A)
- TENDER YEARS HEARSAY
In this motion, the Commonwealth moves to admit the
forensic interview conducted by Ashley Damiano of the Child's
5
Advocacy Center on or about July 25, 2017. That interview was
recorded and the Commonwealth intends (as disclosed at our
hearing of April 25, 2018) to play this interview in total for:
the. jury. The Commonwealth also seeks to introduce A.B.H.'s
statements to her mother Krista Blyler pursuant to the Tender
Years Hearsay Doctrine. - The Commonweal th contends all of these
statements are appropriately admitted as consistent,
spontaneous, relevant, made in a short period of time, and
without any show of evidence of fabrication or coercion.
The defense argues in response that the Court should look
closely t? see if a sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness
exists surrounding the circumstances under which the statements
are made. This is_especially true of the forensic interview.
We have heard the te�timony of Ashley Damiano as well. as
her credentials as a facilitator of forensic interviews which
children in sexual abuse cases. Her experience is founded not
only in her education but perhaps more importantly in the
approximately three hundred interviews she has conducted
involving sexual abuse .investigations. · We are satisfied the
statements made to the forensic examiner developed at our
hearing of April 25, 2018 were made in a neutral environment.
In that regard, we were impressed with the interview's
observation that the child was open and �illing to talk using
6
descriptive language appropriate for a c;:hild of that age. While
we concede there is "no absolute protection against coaching in
this or any situation, Ms. Damiano testified she does speak with
every child in an attempt to develop whether anyone has
discussed the interview with them. In this case, she learned
noting which s�ggested coaching. Taken in total, we believe the
statements are properly admitted both as reported by the mother
and the taped interview by Ms. Damiano. Accordingly, we
determine they are admissible evidence in the case.
In so holding, (notwithstanding what the Court has
developed to this point in support of our rulings) it seems
obvious to us that within these statements also lie numerous
defenses which the defense will undoubtedly wish to raise and
which were, in fact, disclosed at our April 25, 2018 hearing as
we listened to the cross examination. These include recantation
of her claims by the child (in one conversation with the
mother), questions relating to whether or not the mother
believed the child, and various inconsistencies which may exist
over time. None of those defertses can be developed without the
presence of the statements of the case. For this reason, we
believe our ruling in this matter is balanced and necessary to
provide a fair trial.
7·
MOTION IN LIMINE PURSUANT TO COMMONWEALTH V. MI�TNICK
This motion is granted as the record now stands. We ruled
in this fashion for the simple reason the defense has indicated
they are unaware of any instances of dishonest conduct which
they intend to raise which are unrelated to the instant
allegations.
- '
Should some door be opened of which this Court is
unaware we would be prepared to revisit this ruling in the
interest of justice but for now-given the absence of any
opposition by the defense in light of the fact they do not
intend to raise any issues of this sort this ruling is
appropriate.
MOTION TO AMEND INFORMATION
�
The Commonwealth in its motion seeks to amend two defects
in the information as presently filed relating to grading. The
defense has no objection to either amendment indicating on the
record that the amendments appear to be appropriate with grading
as provided by law so that there is no basis to contest them.
Accordingly, we order presently that the charge of violating -
Unlawful Contact with Minor at Count 13 presently graded as a
Felony of the Second Degree is amended to reflect a Felony of
the First Degree. Similarly, the count of the information
charging Defendant Plowman with violating Corruption of Minor at
Count 14 graded as a Misdemeanor of the First Degree is amended
8
to reflect a Felony of the First Degree. As the defense raises
no argument that these amendments prejudi8e the Defendant and
are consistent with applicable law, so ordered.
NOTICE OF EXPERT TESTIM:>NY
In its motion the Commonwealth offers two expert witnesses.
who are intended to be called at trial. Additionally, at our
hearing the Commonwealth noticed a third exp�rt not noted in
their motion in the person of a designated forensic psychologist
who would provide expert testimony generally to educate the jury
regarding the process of disclosure in child abuse cases and the
factors impacting a child's relationship with the perpetrator.
That expert would also provide education regarding victim
behaviors and the related dynamics of tral,lina and impact of
abuse. This testimony is offered neither.to bolster victim
credibility nor to comment on this particular case with any
specificity. Rather, it is introduced to generally educate the
jurors to disspell certain perceived myths and misinformation in
the areas of sexual abuse generally, victim's disclosure, and
victim's behaviors. The defense objects to each of these
experts although the arguments are different with respect to
each.
As to Ashley Damiano, the defense objects to her being
qualified as an expert by the Court due to her lack of what the
.9
defense contends are the "necessary credentials" such as a
specifiG degree in a particular field or science which would
entitle her to be so qualified.
We have examined this claim with respect to Ms. Damiano's
testimony and are satisfied she should.be qualified as an expert
although that-qualification would be limited to qualifying heF
as an expert in facilitating a child interview for forensic
purposes. In so qualifying her, we note Ms. Damiano would not
be offering opinions as to the credibility of the child or
matters of that nature. Instead, she would be qualified to the
.
extent of supporting her expertise in providing a neutral
environment for an interview, conducting the interview without
the use of leading questions, and maintaining that neutral
atmosphere during the interview conducive to obtaining
disclosure from the child. Accordingly, with the limitations
expressed in this opinion, she will be qualified.
With respect to the offer of a medical examiner to testify
regarding the physical examination of the child, the defense
objection is stated with more specificity. Here the defense
objects to the expert's proffered testimony (apparently based on
the medical report) which suggests that a physical exam "neither
confirms nor rules out sexual abuse".
10
Havi�g considered that objection, we believe the testimony
is appropriate and, in fact, r�presents the current .state of the
medical conununity's ability to particularize whether or not
abuse has occurred. Obviously, physical findings are
significant and the absence of any physical findings is
appropriately noted and argued by the defense. However, to take
the position that the absence of physical-findings means that no
abuse has occurred is to deny this Court's
. ' experience as to the
limitations of physical examinations as we have observed them
over twenty-nine years in other cases.
Finally, the defense objects to the newly raised offer by
the Commonwealth of an expert in the field of forensic
psychological expert testimony. We have reviewed the applicable
law in this area and especially the decision of the Pehnsylvania
Supreme Court in the case of CommonweaJth v. 01ivio, 127 A.3d
769 (2015). Based on our reading of 01ivio, we believe that
this testimony is clearly admissible although it will be our
intention at trial to be mindful of setting appropriate limits.
As characterized in the report provided this testimony is
designed to be educational testimony which does not bolster the
victim's credibility but rather educates the jurors generally.
Accordingly, specific references to the case at issue in a
situation where the expert did not interview the child, the
11
mother, or any of the principles should be (and will bel
restricted to general questions. With this limitation in place,
we believe this expert is appropriately offered under present
Pennsylvania law and, accordingly, we will permit the testimony.
Having discuss�d all of the outstanding motions and ruled
in the body of this opinion, so ordered�
BY THE COURT:
, ..
,,�.; .
. ;_,_ :-_ : . ,· �- .
. .. .
•; I
J
·.. •/',l':'ft, ·.. ..
@e
_ .....,.
FILED: __ .,___ri__ f 2-_D_8
r cl_1__ (_
__-
�
ajh
12