Com. v. Campbell, N. ( 2021 )

J-A22002-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
NICHOLAS EDWARD CAMPBELL : No. 1485 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-21-CR-0000968-2020
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 9, 2021
The Commonwealth appeals from the October 29, 2020 order denying
the Commonwealth’s motion to introduce prior bad acts evidence against
Nicholas Edward Campbell. We affirm.
In the instant case, Appellee was charged with one count each of rape,
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, and
indecent assault. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion to introduce
prior bad acts evidence regarding an earlier 2019 alleged incident involving
Appellee and N.C., which resulted in Appellee facing similar charges in
Lancaster County. At a hearing on the motion, the Commonwealth declined
to present any testimony, and instead submitted the police interview, police
reports, and sex assault examination in the Cumberland County case, and the
police report, sex assault examination, and docket in the Lancaster County
case. After taking the matter under advisement, the court denied the
J-A22002-21
Commonwealth’s motion. On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that the
court abused its discretion by placing undue emphasis on the differences
between the encounters, improperly weighing the Commonwealth’s need for
the evidence, and denying the motion within one hour of receiving the
evidence. Commonwealth’s brief at 4, 19-23 & n.2. After reviewing the
certified record and the Commonwealth’s brief, we discern no abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court as to the issues raised by the
Commonwealth, and we affirm the order on the basis of the well-reasoned
opinion that Honorable Edward E. Guido entered on February 26, 2021.
Specifically, Judge Guido thoroughly and accurately reviewed the
applicable law and evidence, concluding “there [wa]s simply nothing so
substantial or distinct in these incidents as to constitute a common scheme,
plan, or modus operandi.” Trial Court Opinion, 2/26/21, at 11; see also id.
at 11-15 (detailing the differences between the Cumberland County encounter
and the Lancaster County encounter). In considering the potential prejudice,
the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Commonwealth’s
need to present the evidence was undercut by the fact that at least two
portions of the Cumberland County encounter were recorded and shared with
another individual. See id. at 10-11 (concluding also that a cautionary
instruction would be insufficient as evidence of the Lancaster County
encounter would only inflame the jury’s passions and deny Appellee a fair
trial). Finally, the court explained that it retired to chambers immediately
following the hearing, taking as much time as was necessary to review the
-2-
J-A22002-21
evidence and applicable law. Id. at 15; see also id. at 15 n.6 (noting that
only the court reporter was present when the court issued its ruling, which
was not filed until three days after it was dictated, and therefore the court was
unaware of the exact timing of the order or how the Commonwealth concluded
that the court “took a mere ‘hour’ to make [its] decision”). As to all of the
foregoing points, we adopt Judge Guido’s reasoning as our own.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/09/2021
-3-