Com. v. Torres, G. ( 2021 )

J-S47034-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
: OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
GERARDO LUIS TORRES :
:
Appellant : No. 530 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered February 14, 2020
in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No: CP-06-CR-0005259-2017
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2021
Appellant, Gerardo Luis Torres, appeals from the February 14, 2020
judgment of sentence of seven to fifteen years of incarceration, followed by
five years of probation, after a jury convicted him of involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, endangering welfare of
children, and indecent assault.1 Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court provided the following background.
In 2004, Appellant… entered into his daughter, B.L.’s room, who
was sixteen at the time, and proceeded to sexually assault her.
Though a complaint was initially filed, the ensuing investigation
did not proceed to any prosecutorial action. In 2016, during an
interview with CYS[2] in an unrelated incident [involving B.L.’s
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(a)(1), 3125(a)(1), 4304(a), and 3126(a)(1),
respectively.
2 “CYS” refers to the Berks County Children and Youth Services.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S47034-20
oldest child], B.L. recounted the allegation of sexual assault.
This time, the matter was again investigated and [the above-
mentioned3] charges were thereafter brought against Appellant.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/20, at 1.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial from November 6-8, 2020. The
trial court thoroughly detailed the testimony and evidence presented during
the three-day jury trial as follows.
[T]he Commonwealth first called B.L. as a witness. B.L. lived
with both Appellant and her mother, Bridget Torres, until she
was three, when Appellant moved out of the house. Appellant
moved back in with the family when B.L. was thirteen.
B.L. testified that upon Appellant’s return to the household,
when she was approximately thirteen years old, Appellant would
often make inappropriate comments about B.L.’s body.
According to B.L. Appellant would also brag about the size of his
own genitals. Appellant would ask B.L. to kiss him on the lips
and, sometimes, when B.L. was going to bed, Appellant would
lean over, kiss B.L. on the neck and place his tongue in her ear.
On multiple occasions, when B.L. would return from seeing her
boyfriend, Appellant would question B.L. if she had sex and then
asked B.L. if Appellant could smell her. Appellant would proceed
to smell B.L. between her legs.
When B.L. was sixteen years old, Appellant entered B.L.’s
bedroom as she was going to bed and sat down on her bed.
Appellant then told B.L. that he wanted to “taste” her. Appellant
then proceeded to put his head under the bedcovers, between
B.L.’s legs, [and] pulled B.L.’s underwear to the side. B.L. then
described that Appellant “grabbed me and had [my] vagina open
and licked me top to bottom.” Afterward, as Appellant left the
room, B.L. testified that Appellant told her that “I want to do it
again.” [Appellant then turned around, returned to her bed,
licked her vagina again, and finally left the room.]
3 Appellant also was charged with one count of corruption of minors.
-2-
J-S47034-20
B.L. testified that she told her boyfriend at the time, Anthony,
about the incident a few days after it occurred. B.L. also told her
best friend, Lisa, about what happened, but did not provide
details of the incident. Around the same time, B.L. also
expressed to Anthony that she wanted to become pregnant so
that she could be emancipated from her parents.
In 2004, an argument occurred between Appellant and Bridget
regarding a cell phone that Appellant had provided to B.L., but
which Bridget did not approve. After Appellant called B.L. to
inform her that [Bridget] found the phone, B.L. and Anthony
arrived at the house and the family had a meeting. During that
meeting, Anthony told Bridget that Appellant had been smoking
marijuana with B.L. and urged B.L. to tell [Bridget] about the
sexual assault. B.L. testified that she told Bridget about the
sexual assault and [Bridget] kicked Appellant out of the house.
Approximately two hours later, Bridget … took B.L. to the
courthouse to report the incident. Although she could not
remember with whom she spoke, B.L. testified that she was
interviewed that night by a member of law enforcement.
Roughly one month later, B.L. received a call from law
enforcement asking if she wanted to press charges, to which she
replied that she did not want to press charges if she would have
to see Appellant in court. B.L. did not receive any further
communication regarding the sexual assault until [CYS
questioned her about it again in 2016.]
In October of 2004, B.L. found out that she was pregnant. At
that time, B.L. moved out of Bridget’s house, married Anthony,
and moved in with Anthony’s family. Appellant attended the
wedding, at which B.L. stated that she and Appellant hugged and
cried but did not say anything. One night, B.L. returned to
[Bridget’s] house to ask her … for help and saw Appellant living
back at the house. Thereafter, Appellant and Bridget moved to
Boston for Bridget’s job.
Ultimately, B.L. and Anthony had two daughters together, but
eventually separated in 2010. Aft[er] the separation, B.L.
moved into a home in Reading and their two daughters stayed
with Anthony in New Jersey. However, that same year, Anthony
contacted B.L. for help, requesting that B.L. take their daughters
and B.L. agreed. When B.L. arrived home with her daughters,
-3-
J-S47034-20
[CYS] became involved and B.L. had the choice of placing the
children into foster care or with a family member. B.L. asked
Bridget to take care of her daughters, thinking that the process
to get the children back with her would be short. At the time,
Appellant was residing with Bridget, but B.L. testified that she
believed [Bridget] “would be on high alert” and that she “would
watch these little girls and make sure nothing would happen to
anybody else again.” B.L. also testified that she felt that she
had nobody else that could help. In 2011, B.L. gave custodial
guardianship to Bridget and Appellant, who were living in the
Boston area. The guardianship ended in 2013 and B.L. regained
custody of her daughters.
In 2016, an unrelated incident occurred between another family
member and B.L.[’]s oldest daughter. Upon becoming aware of
the situation, B.L. contacted CYS and law enforcement. During
the interview with the CYS caseworker, the worker questioned
B.L. regarding the earlier complaint about Appellant. B.L.
testified that the caseworker initiated the paperwork for the
claim and, about a week later, Detective Thomas Weaver came
to B.L.’s home and an investigation [into the 2004 incident]
ensued.
As part of the investigation, B.L. placed a telephone call to
Appellant while sitting in Detective Weaver’s vehicle. One of the
phone calls was recorded and played to the jury during the trial.
On cross-examination, B.L. admitted that she knew Appellant
would be home with her children, though she believed that her
children would be in school during the day. B.L. also understood
that granting custodial guardianship to [Bridget] and Appellant
would provide them with broad authority in the care of her
children. Moreover, B.L. confirmed that CYS approved of the
guardianship.
When questioned about whether she had asked Appellant to
attend her wedding, B.L. stated that she did not remember
inviting him. Nevertheless, B.L. admitted that she asked
Appellant to giver her away at her wedding at the magistrate’s
office.
Defense counsel then referenced the transcript from the
preliminary hearing, during which B.L. testified that Appellant
-4-
J-S47034-20
initially asked if B.L., “wanted to taste” him, but B.L. denied that
Appellant ever asked her to touch or taste him and denied
testifying to such. Likewise, at the preliminary hearing, when
asked whether she told anyone else about the sexual assault
incident, B.L. made no reference to telling her friend Lisa about
the incident.
Detective Thomas Weaver, a criminal investigator with the Berks
County District Attorney’s Office, testified that he was initially
assigned the investigation of the sexual assault in 2016 after a
report of child abuse was received in the office. Upon receiving
the assignment, Detective Weaver first performed a search of
the system and found that B.L. had made the original allegation
in 2004, and that the investigation at that time, which was
handled by another detective, was closed. After initially
interviewing B.L., Detective Weaver contacted her again to
engage in the … recorded telephone call, which was placed and
recorded on January 19, 2017.
Detective Weaver then contacted … Anthony, but was
unsuccessful. Detective Weaver also contacted Patrick Boyle,
Anthony’s stepfather, as well as B.L.’s friend Lisa Bettenhausen.
Detective Weaver testified that he was present at the
preliminary hearing and that his recollection of B.L.’s testimony
was consistent with her testimony at trial. Furthermore,
Detective Weaver indicated that no rape kit collection was ever
performed during the first investigation in 2004, or pursuant to
the reopened investigation.
Patrick Boyle testified that B.L. was his stepson… Anthony’s wife
and that he has known B.L. for approximately fifteen years.
[Patrick] indicated that B.L. told him about the sexual assault at
some point between September and November of 2004, though
he didn’t remember the exact date. [Patrick] further confirmed
that the first time he spoke with anyone from law enforcement
regarding what B.L. told him was approximately four weeks prior
to trial.
The defense called John Monick, who testified that he was the
court reporter attending the preliminary hearing in this matter
before the magisterial district on November 2, 2017[,] and that
he subsequently produced a transcript of the proceedings. Mr.
-5-
J-S47034-20
Monick then read from the transcript of the preliminary hearing
wherein B.L. testified that … Appellant asked her if she wanted
to “taste” him. Mr. Monick also recited the portion of the
preliminary hearing transcript in which B.L. only referred to
telling Anthony and [Bridget] about the sexual assault. Mr.
Monick testified that in his forty-year career as a court reporter,
he had only previously been called to court once to testify
regarding transcripts that he has produced, but not as to the
truthfulness of his transcripts. During cross-examination, the
Commonwealth asked Mr. Monick to recite a portion of the
transcript in which defense counsel, questioning B.L. at the
preliminary hearing, seemed to acknowledge that Appellant had
asked to “taste” B.L. and ignored the discrepancy in the earlier
answer.
The defense next called CYS caseworker, William Clemmons III,
who testified that in 2016, he engaged in an email conversation
with Bridget, during which he informed [Bridget] that he was no
longer handling B.L.’s case. Mr. Clemmons advised Bridget that
another caseworker, Leah Knoll, whom Mr. Clemmons described
as “tough as nails,” would be taking over the case.
The Commonwealth questioned Mr. Clemmons [sic] stated that
he first met Bridget in 2010 or 2011, and that he has not had
contact with Bridget since the 2016 email. Mr. Clemmons
discontinued his involvement in the case investigation in 2015,
when the case was reassigned to the new caseworker.
The Commonwealth then question[ed] Mr. Clemmons, and he
admitted as such, that Bridget sent him cookies and photographs
of the children. At this point in the trial, defense counsel
requested a sidebar, and at the sidebar sought to rebut the
Commonwealth’s cross-examination by pursuing a line of
questioning regarding allegations of sexual misconduct that B.L.
claimed against Mr. Clemmons. The Commonwealth argued that
the line of questioning would be irrelevant. Th[e trial] court
ultimately ruled against allowing questioning about alleged
sexual misconduct claimed by B.L. against Mr. Clemmons.
Bridget … testified that she and Appellant were first married in
May of 1987 and B.L. was born in December of that year. In
1991, Appellant and Bridget divorced, and Appellant moved out
of the house. However, around 2002, when B.L. was about
-6-
J-S47034-20
fifteen years old, Bridget asked Appellant to move back into the
house. At the time, Bridget was employed full-time and
continued to work full-time [at a bank] for seventeen years. In
2004, Bridget’s working hours increased and she regularly
traveled to the New England area. While Bridget was at work,
Appellant would be home with B.L.
In or around 2003, Bridget became aware that B.L. began dating
Anthony, even though Bridget had prohibited the relationship.
Bridget testified that in August of 2004, Anthony, who was not
permitted to be in Bridget’s house, entered the home. An
argument ensued in which Bridget told Anthony to leave the
house and reiterated the prohibition on the relationship between
Anthony and B.L. When Bridget threatened to inform Appellant
about the continued relationship, Anthony told Bridget that
Appellant had been abusing B.L. Bridget immediately told
Anthony to go home and proceeded to comfort B.L.
When Appellant, who had been at work, arrived back at the
house, Bridget told him to leave. Bridget called her therapist to
determine the proper course of action, and then called the police
and CYS. Bridget took B.L. to the courthouse, where she
obtained a temporary protection from abuse order.
After that night, Bridget described B.L. as becoming more
rebellious and repeatedly talking about being emancipated.
Bridget and B.L. argued about allowing Anthony to move into the
house, after which, B.L. became angry and proceeded to move in
with Anthony’s family. In September of 2004, B.L. returned to
the house and informed Bridget that she was pregnant. Bridget,
who had been in contact with CYS regarding [t]he entire
situation, called CYS again, informing [t]he agency that B.L. was
pregnant. A representative from CYS arrived and took B.L. to a
doctor’s appointment, after which Bridget, the CYS worker, and
B.L. sat down to discuss B.L.’s options. B.L. decided to marry
Anthony. Bridget testified that she and B.L. had talked about
inviting Appellant to B.L.’s wedding, and that B.L. and Appellant
had talked about it. Appellant attended the wedding and gave
B.L. away at the we[d]ding.
In late October or early November of 2004, Appellant moved
back into the house. B.L. and Anthony moved into a house
nearby and Appellant helped B.L. move into the new place.
-7-
J-S47034-20
Bridget disputed B.L.[’s] testimony that the relationship was
strained at that point, noting that they regularly visited each
other’s homes, including Appellant. Bridget and Appellant
moved to the Boston area in 2008, but Bridget contends that the
relationship between herself, Appellant, and B.L. continued to be
amicable.
In January of 2011, B.L. contacted Appellant, after which,
Bridget took time off from her job and she and Appellant
traveled to Pennsylvania. Once in Pennsylvania, Appellant and
Bridget met with B.L., who then asked Appellant and Bridget to
take B.L.’s daughters with them. In February of 2011, Appellant
and Bridget, with the consent of B.L., took permanent
guardianship of B.L.’s two daughters. As part of the process,
both Appellant and Bridget needed to be approved for
guardianship, which they were. B.L.’s daughters stayed with
Bridget and Appellant for almost two and a half years, until July
of 2013. While B.L.’s daughters were in the custody of Bridget
and Appellant, Bridget was the sole worker [in the] home and
therefore, Appellant was often entrusted with the care of the
girls. Bridget testified that B.L. was in contact with Appellant
and herself and that B.L. knew the conditions that existed while
the girls were in their custody.
After B.L.’s daughters returned to live with her, the relationship
between Bridget, Appellant and B.L. and her family continued.
In 2016, when Bridget and Appellant decided to remarry, Bridget
included B.L. in discussions and planning.
In late August of 2016, a disagreement occurred between B.L.[,]
B.L.’s [second] husband, Bridget, and Appellant. Bridget and
Appellant drove down from the Boston area, to sit down with
B.L. and her husband for a meeting. However, B.L. became
upset and the relationship between B.L. and Bridget and
Appellant began to deteriorate. From that point on, Bridget and
Appellant did not have contact with B.L. or her daughters.
Bridget testified that she first came into contact with Mr.
Clemmons from CYS while she and Appellant maintained
guardianship of B.L.’s daughters, and Bridget maintained contact
with Mr. Clemmons. As a token of their appreciation for Mr.
Clemmons[’] work to have B.L.’s daughters returned to her,
Bridget would often send cookies and holiday cards to Mr.
-8-
J-S47034-20
Clemmons. In September of 2016, Bridget filed a report with
CYS regarding B.L. Soon thereafter, Bridget received a phone
call from B.L., who was furious, and the conversation ended with
B.L. expressing that she did not want to see Bridget again or be
part of her life. Since that time, Bridget has had very little
contact with B.L.
Appellant next testified on his own behalf. Appellant denied
sexually assaulting B.L. Appellant denied making sexually
inappropriate comments to B.L. or asking to smell B.L.
On rebuttal, the Commonwealth called Lisa Bettenhausen to
testify. Ms. Bettenhausen testified that in the fall of 2004, B.L.
called and asked Ms. Bettenhausen to pick her up. At that time,
B.L. told Ms. Bettenhausen that Appellant performed oral sex on
B.L. On cross-examination, Ms. Bettenhausen admitted that she
was still friends with B.L.
Id. at 1–8 (citations and brackets in original omitted).4
The jury found Appellant guilty as indicated hereinabove. On February
14, 2020, the trial court imposed an aggregate judgment of sentence of
seven to fifteen years of incarceration followed by five years of probation.
Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion challenging the weight of the
evidence. The trial court held a hearing on March 5, 2020, at the conclusion
of which the court denied Appellant’s motion.
This timely filed notice of appeal followed. The trial court ordered
Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant
4 At the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, the trial court
granted Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the
corruption of minors charge based upon the statute of limitations. N.T.,
11/6-8/2019, at 274–75.
-9-
J-S47034-20
filed his concise statement on April 20, 2020. The trial court filed its Rule
1925(a) opinion on May 29, 2020. On appeal, Appellant presents the
following questions for our review.
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Post Sentence
Motion challenging the weight of the evidence where it was
clear from the record that the verdict issued was rendered
unreliable, tainted, questionable, and contrary to the weight
of the evidence by the trial testimony of [B.L.] where her
testimony was replete with inconsistencies, lies, half-truths,
and utterly without support or proof, and especially
unbelievable when measured against the wholly corroborated
and consistent testimony of the defense witnesses, all of
which was entirely supported by further independent
testimony and unassailable facts?
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s line
of questioning of William Clemmons, III, regarding an
accusation that [B.L.] made against Mr. Clemmons of
inappropriate sexual behavior toward her during the course of
his contact with the alleged victim through Children and Youth
Services while the agency was investigating the alleged
victim, where such testimony would have served to challenge
the credibility of the alleged victim in a case where credibility
was the lynchpin of the Commonwealth’s prosecution as no
physical evidence existed?
Appellant’s Brief at 6 (trial court and suggested answers omitted).
Appellant first agues the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence. His challenge is grounded in what he deems to be the
“unbelievable” testimony of B.L., which he claims was fabricated,
uncorroborated, and inconsistent with her preliminary hearing testimony
(regarding who she told about the incident and what Appellant said) and her
actions following the incident (regarding her inviting Appellant to her
- 10 -
J-S47034-20
wedding to give her away and agreeing to Appellant and Bridget’s
guardianship of her daughters). Appellant’s Brief at 15–30.
Our Supreme Court has instructed:
An appellate court’s standard of review when presented with
a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of
review applied by the trial court:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
of whether the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence. Because the trial judge has had the
opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented,
an appellate court will give the gravest consideration
to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination
that the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for
granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s
conviction that the verdict was or was not against
the weight of the evidence and that a new trial
should be granted in the interest of justice.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citing
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000)).
The trial court held a hearing to allow Appellant and the
Commonwealth to present arguments on Appellant’s weight claim. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion, noting
that the jury “must have concluded that [Appellant’s] testimony was untrue”
and that the court was “in no position to tell them that they were wrong.”
N.T., 3/5/20, at 12. The trial court elaborated in its Rule 1925(a) opinion:
In reaching its verdict, the jury obviously weighed the testimony
of the various witnesses from the trial and credited B.L.’s
- 11 -
J-S47034-20
testimony as to the sexual assault. The jury did so after having
heard defense counsel’s vigorous cross-examination of the
Commonwealth’s witnesses and upon the testimony in favor of
Appellant. Likewise, the jury heard testimony and saw evidence
that guardianship of B.L.’s two daughters was granted to
Appellant and Bridget. The inconsistencies in who B.L. told of
the sexual assault and how such was presented during the
preliminary hearing were also presented thoroughly to the jury
by defense counsel and through testimony of the court reporter.
While [the trial] court acknowledges that there were clear
conflicts in the testimony presented and that certainly, one
might find inconsistencies both in the testimony and in what
some may surmise to be contradictory to human behavior.
However, we don’t find the conflicts or inconsistencies to be “so
unreliable or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon
obviously the result of conjecture and not reason.”
Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 454, 550 (Pa.
1970). Th[e trial]court, though under no obligation to review
the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, may
not grant a new trial “because of a mere conflict in testimony or
because the trial judge on the same facts would have arrived at
a different conclusion.” Thompson v. City of Philadelphia,
493 A.2d 669, 672 (Pa. 1985). As such, we find no reason to
disturb the verdict of the jury as it was not so contrary to the
evidence that it shocks the conscience of th[e trial] court.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/20, at 11.
Having considered the trial court’s findings and reasoning, we conclude
that it acted within its discretion by rejecting Appellant’s challenge to
the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s first issue fails.
Appellant also contends the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s
request to question Mr. Clemmons about B.L.’s accusation against Mr.
Clemmons of inappropriate sexual behavior, arguing that such testimony
- 12 -
J-S47034-20
was admissible to challenge B.L.’s credibility. Appellant’s Brief at 31. This
issue involves a challenge to an evidentiary ruling. It is settled:
[a]dmission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not
merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or
misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is
manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will
or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.
Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 357–58 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en
banc) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, an appellant bears a “heavy
burden” to show that the trial court has abused its discretion.
Commonwealth v. Christine, 125 A.3d 394, 398 (Pa. 2015).
Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his
request to question Mr. Clemmons about B.L.’s allegation that he engaged in
sexually inappropriate behavior towards her. By way of background, during
cross-examination, the Commonwealth questioned Mr. Clemmons about his
receiving cookies and pictures of B.L.’s children from Bridget as a way to
demonstrate that Bridget had “him in her pocket.” N.T., 11/6-8/19, at 309,
312. Based on this, Appellant sought to question Mr. Clemmons about B.L.’s
allegation against Mr. Clemmons of sexually inappropriate behavior, which
Appellant asserts “was never proven[,]” to explain that “that’s the only
reason the mom sent these kids[’] pictures. She[] feels like a piece of crap
to this guy[.]” Id. at 310. Appellant’s counsel further argued:
- 13 -
J-S47034-20
That’s the allegation[, that Bridget had him in her pocket]. I
have to be able to respond. … The only reason she is doing
that, and he is participating, because [B.L.] accused him of
inappropriate contact…. [The Commonwealth] is asking because
she’s trying to show a bias for him towards my client, and there
was no bias. My client is horrified that her daughter made
another allegation against somebody else that isn’t true.[5]
That’s why. So I have to be able to get into the bias.
Id. The trial court held that it was “not going to let this whole business
evolve into a separate case in effect raising issues that have not a thing to
do with the allegations that are in front of [the court.]” Id. at 314.
Pa.R.E. 103(a) provides:
(a) A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude
evidence only:
(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
(A) makes a timely objection ...; and
(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent
from the context; or
(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the
court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the
substance was apparent from the context.
Pa.R.E. 103(a). Rule 608 provides in pertinent part:
A witness’s credibility may be attacked or supported by
testimony about the witness’s reputation for having a character
for truthfulness or untruthfulness. But evidence of truthful
character is admissible only after the witness’s character for
truthfulness has been attacked. Opinion testimony about the
5 It is unclear from the transcript whether Appellant’s counsel was referring
to Appellant, who was his client, to Bridget, or to Appellant and Bridget.
- 14 -
J-S47034-20
witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness is not
admissible.
Pa.R.E. 608(a). Moreover, “the character of a witness for truthfulness may
not be attacked or supported by cross-examination or extrinsic evidence
concerning specific instances of the witness’s conduct[.]” Pa.R.E. 608(b)(1).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained:
In the instant matter, Appellant sought to introduce evidence
that the victim, B.L., had made a claim of inappropriate behavior
against Mr. Clemmons that was alleged to have occurred
subsequent to the sexual assault complained of in this action.
Appellant argues that such evidence was necessary to challenge
the credibility of B.L. Clearly, the testimony defense counsel
sought to introduce was of a specific instance of the victim’s
behavior, though occurring subsequent to the crime alleged, but
prior to trial, and, in accordance with the case law in this
Commonwealth, [the trial court] find[s] that such cannot be
introduced pursuant to Pa.R.E. 608 and th[e] court properly
excluded such evidence in the trial of this matter.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/29/20, at 14.
Based on our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion on
the part of the trial court. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his
second issue.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Strassburger did not participate in the consideration or decision
of this case.
- 15 -
J-S47034-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/25/2021
- 16 -