Com. v. C.A.H. ( 2014 )

J-A18043-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
C.A.H.
Appellant No. 628 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 4, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002501-2011
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2014
C.A.H. appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Luzerne County. After our review, we affirm on the
opinion authored by the Honorable Tina Polachek Gartley.
C.A.H., the natural mother of C.C., was charged with rape of a child,1
criminal conspiracy (rape of a child),2 incest,3 corruption of minors,4 and
endangering the welfare of children.5 C.A.H. began the abuse when her son
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(c).
2
18 Pa.C.S § 903.
3
18 Pa.C.S. § 4302.
4
18 Pa.C.S. §6301(a)1.
5
18 Pa.C.S. §4304(a)(1).
J-A18043-14
was eight years old, and it continued until he was twelve. C.C. testified that
he was home-schooled, watched pornography, and that on his eighth
birthday his father made him have sex with C.A.H. Thereafter, C.C. had sex
with C.A.H., while his father watched, approximately four times each week.
Following trial, a jury convicted C.A.H. of all charges. The Sexual
Offenders Assessment Board (SOAB) evaluated C.A.H. and determined she
was a sexually violent predator (SVP). The court sentenced C.A.H. to an
aggregate term of imprisonment of 20 years and 9 months to 41 years and 6
months (249 months to 498 months). C.A.H. filed a notice of appeal. On
April 3, 2013, the trial court ordered C.A.H. to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. On April 23, 2013, C.A.H.
filed her Rule 1925(b) Statement, raising 27 claims of error. On appeal,
C.A.H. raises the following issues:
1. Was [C.A.H.] denied her right to a fair trial by the
Child victim undergo psychological and psychiatric
examinations to determine his competency to
testify?
2. Was the [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the lower
court erred in finding the child competent to testify
provided copies of records and reports of interviews
where the Child contradicted the accusations
previously made concerning the instant charges
against [C.A.H.]?
3. Was [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the lower court
erred in failing to dismiss the charges or in
permitting the Child to testify even after the District
reports of interviews wherein it was disclosed that
-2-
J-A18043-14
against his parents on the current charges?
4. Was [C.A.H.] denied a fair trial when the court
improperly permitted the Commonwealth to
introduce evidence that C.C. had killed cats while
living with his parents, as a result of his alleged
abuse?6
5. Did the court below err in not instructing the jury
that: A) the testimony of the Child was rendered
suspect because of lack of prompt complaint and
that it is a factor that the jury must consider as to
justifiably produce doubt as to whether the offense
indeed occurred, or whether it was a recent
motive in making the complaints against the [C.A.H.]
following his considerable period of silence was
6. Whether
for discovery of certain records and material in the
possession of the Wyoming County Children and
Youth Services involving [P.P.]?
7.
to the confrontation and due process clauses of the
Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, in
the Child, [P.P.], and other Commonwealth witnesses
with the hereinbefore mentioned records of the
Luzerne County Child Advocacy Center and Wyoming
____________________________________________
6
We note that i
waived for failure to place an objection on the record, see trial court opinion,
at p. 5, C.A.H. does not develop any argument on this claim in her appellate
adequately develop his argument,
meaningful appellate review is not possible. This Court will not act as new
Commonwealth v. Genovese, 675 A.2d 331, 334 (1996) (citing
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)). See also Commonwealth v. Zewe, 663 A.2d 195,
199 (1995).
-3-
J-A18043-14
County Children & Youth Services which may have
been reflective of the motive or bias of the Child
and/or [P.P.]?
8. Did the lower court err in permitting the Child and
[P.P.] to testify even after it was disclosed that the
Child had complained that [P.P.], who was charged
communicating with him concerning the instant case
and had to be warned about her interference in this
case?
the relevant law,
C.A.H. raises on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/30/2013.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence based on Judge Polachek
e direct counsel to attach a copy of this opinion in
the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
WECHT, J., concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/26/2014
-4-