Com. v. Benson, J.

J. S84042/18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JOSHUA BENSON, : No. 762 EDA 2018
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, February 9, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at Nos. CP-09-CR-0001877-2014,
CP-09-CR-0003264-2014, CP-09-CR-0003265-2014,
CP-09-CR-0003266-2014, CP-09-CR-0007832-2013,
CP-09-CR-0007833-2013, CP-09-CR-0007834-2013,
CP-09-CR-0007968-2013, CP-09-CR-0007969-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 22, 2019
Joshua Benson appeals from the February 9, 2018 judgment of sentence
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County following his conviction
in a jury trial of three counts of rape, two counts of involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse, nine counts of sexual assault, five counts of aggravated indecent
assault without consent, five counts of indecent assault without consent, and
one count of indecent assault by forcible compulsion.1 These charges stem
from appellant’s convictions of sexually assaulting ten teenage girls. The trial
118 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(1), 3123(a)(1), 3124.1, 3125(a)(1), 3126(a)(1),
and 3126(a)(2), respectively.
J. S84042/18
court imposed an aggregate sentence of 57½ to 115 years of incarceration.
We affirm.
Following his convictions,
[n]o post-sentence motions were filed. On March 6,
2015, [a]ppellant filed a notice of appeal to the
Superior Court. On September 21, 2015, [a]ppellant
filed a Praecipe for Discontinuance and subsequently
withdrew his appeal.
On September 12, 2016, [a]ppellant filed a Petition
pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),
42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9541 et seq. [The trial court] issued
an Order on January 24, 2017, directing [a]ppellant
to file an Amended PCRA Petition. Appellant filed an
Amended PCRA Petition on February 24, 2017. On
January 19, 2018, [a]ppellant filed a second Amended
PCRA Petition. On February 5, 2018, upon agreement
of the parties, [the trial court] granted post-conviction
collateral relief in the form of reinstating [a]ppellant’s
right to file a motion for reconsideration of sentence
and a direct appeal therefrom nunc pro tunc.
On February 9, 2018, [a]ppellant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of Sentence. Following a hearing
held February 28, 2018, [the trial court] denied
[a]ppellant’s Motion. On March 12, 2018, [a]ppellant
filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.
Trial court opinion, 6/20/18 at 23-24.
The trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(b). Appellant timely
complied. Thereafter, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review: “Did the [trial court]
err in denying [a]ppellant’s motion in limine regarding the statement that he
had slept with 87 women?” (Appellant’s brief at 4.)
-2-
J. S84042/18
Having determined, after careful review, that the learned trial court, the
Honorable Rea B. Boylan, in her June 20, 2018 Rule 1925(a) opinion, ably and
comprehensively disposes of appellant’s issue on appeal, with appropriate
reference to the record and without legal error, we affirm on the basis of that
opinion wherein the trial court concluded that:
[a]ppellant argues that this Court improperly denied
his Motion in Limine to exclude an admission to
investigators that he had previously slept with
87 women. We find that this statement was relevant
to establish the context of the statements he made
about the sexual assaults of the ten victims and the
reason that investigators took steps to identify
additional victims. We further find that the probative
value of this statement outweighed its potential for
unfair prejudice, and that this Court’s subsequent
cautionary instruction to the jury ameliorated any
remaining prejudicial effect.
Trial court opinion, 6/20/18 at 24.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/22/19
-3-
Circulated 03/11/2019 02:45 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-09-CR-0003266-2014
CP-09-CR-0003265-2014
v. CP-09-CR-0003264-2014
CP-09-CR-0001877-2014
JOSHUA R. BENSON CP-09-CR-0007969-2013
CP-09-CR-0007968-2013
CP-09-CR-0007834-2013
CP-09-CR-0007833-2013
DO NOT, PU,BLISH
CP-09-CR-0007832-2013
OPINION
Defendant Joshua Bensont" Appellant") appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
from the denial of post-sentence motio1:15 ori February 28, 2018. On August 18, 2014, Appellant
proceeded to a consolidated jury trial on the nine criminal cases referenced above. On August
22, 2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of sexually assaulting ten teenage girls over a two-year
period. (The specific convictions are identified during the discussion of the factual background
of each offense). On February 9, 2015, this Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 57 Yz to 115
years in a state correctional facility. Appellant challenges this Court's denial of his Motion in
Lirnine to exclude astatement he made to investigators that he had slept with 87 women. We
file this Opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure l 925(a).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
§
,,
n
The relevant factual background of each case is discussed below:
A. · Criminal Information No. 7832-2013 0
Victim R.A. was a fourteen-year-old student at BensaJem High School in Bucks County
e(
when she met Appellant on the website myyearbook.com. N.T. 8/19/14, pp. 148-150. They
began to communicate via text-message. Through these conversations, Appellant asked R.A.
whether she was a virgin, which she confirmed. Id. at 166. In July, 2012, R.A. asked her mother
to drop her off at the high school to meet the Appellant. Jd. She remembered that it was July
because she had just returned from a vacation in Ocean City, Maryland, and her mother had
purchased Rita's water ice due to the hot weather. Id. 148-150, 187. R.A. thought the meeting
place would be safe because it was happening at a high school. Id. at 153. She saw Appellant
sitting on the stairs of the high school when her mother dropped her off at the front of the
campus. Id. When her mother left, R.A. did not see anyone else on the campus except for
landscapers. Id.
After talking for a few minutes, Appellant and R.A. walked through the parking lot to a
grass field in front of the high school's football field and sat down in the grass next to each other.
Id. at 154, 163. While sitting, Appellant began to kiss R.A. and pushed her back onto the grass.
Jd. at 164-165. As R.A. lay on her back, Appellant pulled down his pants, removed her shorts
and underwear, and climbed on top of her. Id. at 164-166. R.A. then felt his penis penetrate her
vagina. She described feeling a sharp pain in that area and saw blood between her legs. Id. at
167. Prior to and during the intercourse, R.A. said, "no" and "stop" several times, but the
Appellant did not acknowledge her. Id. at 169. Appellant also attempted to unclip and remove
her bra, but was unsuccessful. Id. at 170.
R.A. and Appellant subsequently stood up and clothed themselves, and her mother sent a
text message stating that she would pick up R.A. at the front of the school. Id. at 168. After they
had intercourse, Appellant told R.A., "you're my girlfriend now." Id. at 170. They waited at the
front of the school without speaking to each other for a few minutes until R.A. 's mother picked
her up. Id. at 170-171. R.A. did not disclose the assault until October, 2012, when she
overheard another student in her gym class describe Appellant to the teacher as "amazing." Id. at
2
174-175. She disclosed the incident to the gym teacher, who then reported the assault to the
school counselor and R.A.'s mother. Id.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault, one count of Aggravated
Indecent Assault without Consent, and one count of Indecent Assault without Consent.
B. Criminal Information No. 7833-2013
In 2011, victim M.D. was a freshman-year classmate of the Appellant's younger sister at
Bensalem High School. Id. at 194-196. In December of that year, Appellant's sister invited
M.D. to a sleepover at the Appellant's home in Bensalem on a Friday after school. Id. at 198-
199. Although the sleepover was initially planned for Friday night, M.D. stayed for the entire
weekend. Id. M.D. met the Appellant for the first time at that sleepover. On Saturday night,
they had a "heart to heart" about various family issues. Id. M.D. and Appellant also began
"cutting," or using a razor blade to self-mutilate, during that conversation. Id. at 200. After
everyone else in the home went to bed, Appellant kissed M.D. Id. at 202. During this
conversation, M.D. told Appellant that she was a virgin. Id. at 206.
M.D. returned to Appellant's home the following Tuesday after school to visit
Appellant's sister. Id. at 203. After dropping off her belongings in the sister's bedroom, M.D.
"ended up being dragged by [Appellant] into his (bedroom]." Id. at 203. In his bedroom, M.D.
and Appellant began "making out, it seemed harmless, and then my pants were coming off. I
wasn't really happy with it, I said no and stop, and he didn't." Id. Appellant then removed his
own pants and penetrated M.D.'s vagina with his penis. Id. Although M.D. attempted to push
AppelJant off, he moved her hands and held them to the side or above her head. Id. at 205. At
one point during the assault, Appellant said that he couldn't stop because "he didn't want to get
blue balls." Id. While Appellant initially used a condom, he removed it during intercourse and
ejaculated onto the bed. Id. at 204-205.
3
M.D. returned to the home later that week to see Appellant's sister. Id. at 207. When she
returned on this occasion, she was again sexually assaulted by the Appellant in his bedroom in a
similar manner. Id. During this assault, M.D. began to scream because of the pain, so Appellant
shoved a pair of "Dr. Pepper and red" colored pajama pants into her mouth. Id. at 208.
Appellant also digitally penetrated her vagina and performed oral sex upon her. Id. at 209.
Again, Appellant ignored M.D. 's pleas for him to stop. Id.
In January, 2012, during the school's winter break, M.D. disclosed the assaults to her
friend, who subsequently used M.D. 's cellphone to end the relationship with Appellant. Id. at
211-212. The following year, M.D.'s mother became aware of the assaults because she
discovered a discarded note in M.D.'s bedroom, in which the victim wrote that she "couldn't
even tell [her mother] that she had been raped." Id. at 213, 236. M.D.'s mother then disclosed
the assaults to the police.
After the disclosure, Bensalem Township Detective Christopher McMullen and
Lieutenant Robert Gorman of the Bucks County Detectives used M.D.'s cellphone to place three
recorded phone calls to Appellant between May and September, 2013. Id. at 230-248.
On September 5, 2013, one day after the third and final recorded call, McMullen and
Bensalem Township Detective David Nieves interviewed Appellant regarding his assaults
against M.D. Id. at 246. Appellant admitted that he had sex with M.D. "lots of times." Id. at
259. Regarding whether M.D. agreed to sex, Appellant stated the following:
She was agreeable at first and then she asked me to stop. I was close to busting my nut,
and I asked if I could continue till I busted my nut. She said it hurt a lot but I only
needed one or two more strokes, then I busted my nut. I came all over her belly. The
next morning it was Christmas day, and she left.
Id. When asked whether she was ever upset during intercourse, he replied, "[ o ]ne time she
started crying during sex, not on Christmas Eve but another time after that night." Id. Finally,
4
when asked whether M.D. ever said no to having sex, Appellant admitted, "I never asked, kissing
always leads to sex for me." Id. at 262.
Regarding his prior sexual history, Appellant described his first sexual experience with a
girl in Washington, and stated that he wished he could contact her so that she would "know what
she made me become ... a rapist." Id. at 268-269. He further admitted that he had difficulty
stopping sexual activity when a girl told him to stop, and that being told no fuels his desire for
sex. Id. at 262, 271-273. He stated that being told no during sexual intercourse reminds him of
his first sexual experience in Washington because he also "said no a lot" during the encounter.
Id. at 270.
Appellant further admitted to having sexual intercourse with several additional women.
Id. at 259, 263, 271-279. Appellant stated that he became aggressive with several of the victims
during intercourse. Id. at 265-267, 270, 274. When asked "[h]ow many other girls have you had
sex with," Appellant stated, "87." Id. at 278-279. Out of those 87 women, only "the virgins"
said no to him during intercourse. Id. When the detectives asked Appellant to name the virgins,
Appellant identified M.D., S.R., C.P., J.P., and C.S. Id. at 279. Appellant further stated that
some of the other virgins resided in Utah, Washington, and New Jersey. Id. Finally, when the
detectives asked Appellant to confirm whether he "managed to have sex with over 80 girls" since
2010, he answered, "[y]eah, I'm addicted to sex. Is there help available for it?" Id. at 280.
Regarding victim J.P., Appellant stated she was the first woman he had sexual intercourse
with in Pennsylvania, and that they "had sex at Neshaminy Mall. I took her V Card." Id. at 263,
270. 1 In his notes of the interview, Detective McMullen wrote that Appellant was smiling and
1
� Criminal Information No. 7834-20 I 3; irurn Part C, p. 8.
5
seemed proud of this admission. Id. However, regarding J.P.'s allegation of Appellant's assault
at the Comwells Heights Train Station, he stated the following:
The train station is made up. We did it at the graveyard and I got aggressive because I
like pain. She was getting sore and I kept going. I didn 't stop. She was digging her nails
into my back because I like pain. I did oral sex on her, too, and I busted my nut on her
stomach. We had sex in the graveyard a lot of times. I lost count of how many times.
Id. at 266. He further stated that he became aggressive with J.P. "seven or eight times," and that
she would "say stop, but I didn't." Id. at 267.
When asked whether he remembered victim R.A., Appellant stated the following:
I remember but I thought her name was [redacted]. We were chillin[g] at Bensalem High
School eating Rita's Water Ice. We laid on the grass behind the school and started
making out. I rolled her over on me, then rolled her onto her back. I was kissing her
neck and chest and started pulling her pants down. She said to stop so I asked her if I
could spoon her and she said yes ... Just rubbing my dick against her pussy until I bust a
nut. I started doing it, but then I slid my dick into her pussy. I pushed it all the way in.
Id. at 271-272.2 Appellant stated that R.A. was crying during the assault, and related that he
subsequently "blew her off because she has-well, I don't know how to say this but she has
hairy nipples, gross." Id. at 272. When asked whether he performed oral sex on her, Appellant
replied, "No, she had a very bushy pussy and it turned me off." Id.
Regarding victim S.R., Appellant stated that he "took her V card at my house," and that
he had sexual intercourse with her "[ o ]ne time in the woods by Bucks Meadow Apartments. One
time under a stairwell at Bucks Meadow Apartments. And the rest of the times in my home." Id.
at 274-275.3 Finally, Appellant stated the following regarding his encounters with victim C.P.:
She's a black girl, kind of cute. We had vaginal sex once. She came to my home on my
birthday. We were hooking up and making out. We stopped because my sister was
there. We then went into the kitchen and Cassidy hit me in the balls hard. I went upstairs
to the bathroom holding my nuts. I dropped my pants to check out my nuts and she came
into the bathroom to apologize. She kissed me and rubbed my balls. I then laid with her
2
� Criminal Information No. 7832-2013; supra Part A, p. I.
3
� Criminal lnfonnation No. 7968-2013; infra Part D, p. 10.
6
in the bathtub and ate her pussy. While I was eating her pussy my sister walked in and
saw us so we stopped.
A few nights later she was over my house and wanted to lose her V card so we were
going to pop her cherry, but then she wanted to have anal sex instead. I did anal to her
but couldn't stay hard. Later that night I popped her cherry. The sex lasted two to three
hours. It was really good sex.
About a week later she came over and agreed to sex. Just as I was about to slide my dick
in she changed her mind so I busted a nut on her chest instead.
Id. at 275-277.4 Appellant stated that he had sex with C.P. twice, "[ojnce vaginal and once anal.
And the one time I just busted a nut on her chest, too. Other times I would just eat her pussy and
stuff." Id. at 277-278.
Appellant subsequently provided the following written statement via text message to
Detectives McMullen and Nieves:
I'll admit to technically raping [M.D.] and I feel horrible about it. It kills me knowing
what I have done to [her]. I have been through the same thing. I lost my card by rape,
and I know how it feels and what it's like. I wish I had more control over it, and that I
wish I knew that there was help for this (be]cause I beat myself up about it all the time. I
cut myself [be]cause of my memories. I wish I could fix everything I've done. I want
help. I hate being like this, and I honestly don't want sex and never did. I've realized I
only do it to feel love, and I wish I could stop having sex. There's no point, I honestly
don't enjoy it that much. All I want is to change this flaw about me, I can't take it
anymore. I've screwed up, but if I knew there was help for people like this, I would have
went and got help for it. It's just not me at all. I want to be myself, but my past can't help
me get through life. I need some help. I need to get this off my mind. I don't want to get
horny ever, I just want to be happy and haven't been happy since I was 15. When I was
15 I started hurting and cutting myself. I've gone through this for too long. I need help
and I want help. My life is off balance, and I wish I could just be who I really am and not
what my mind makes me feel and do.
Id. at 290-292. In an additional text message, Appellant wrote the following statement:
[J.P.], (R.A.J, [M.D.J, (S.R.], these are the girls I've done this to and I feel horrible about
it .... I admit to raping [J.P.]. I feel horrible about what I've done and I'm truly sorry
for what I did to you. I know it's hard going through what I did. I wish I could change it.
I'm truly sorry that I raped you in the graveyard at Neshaminy Mall. As you know,
[J.P.], we really got in it that day. We were enjoying. You started digging your nails in
my back and it got to me to where I didn't want to stop when you said to stop when I put
4
� Criminal Information No. 1877-2014; infra Part F, p. 14.
7
you on top. I'm sorry for what I did to you, and I wish I could fix it. I admit to also
raping [R.A.] and [S.R.]. [R.A.] was at Bensalem High School, (S.R.] was at an
apartment complex in Bucks Meadows.
Id. at 294-297.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Rape by Forcible CompuJsion, one count
oflnvoluntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion, one count of Sexual Assault,
one count of Aggravated Indecent AssauJt without Consent, and one count of Indecent Assault
without Consent.
C. Criminal Information No. 7834-2013
In 2011, Appellant and victim J.P. were classmates at Foundations Behavioral Health
Partial Program, an inpatient and outpatient hospital and school. Id. at 17-21. When they first
exchanged cell phone numbers at the school and began to communicate via text message, she
was fourteen years old. Id. Appellant subsequently asked J.P. by text message to be his
girlfriend. Id. He knew that J.P. was a virgin because they had discussed the topic at school. Id.
at 52.
One day, J.P. went to the Neshaminy Mall in Bensalem, Bucks County with her best
friend and her friend's family. Id. at 22. After arriving at the mall, J.P. and her friend met
Appellant and another male outside of the Sears Department Store. Id. at 23. Appellant asked
J.P. for a kiss, and she obliged. She observed that Appellant had brought condoms because he
"was pulling them out of his pocket and blowing them up" inside the mall. Id. at 24.
When they walked outside of the mall, Appellant said to J.P. that he needed to speak with
her. Id. at 25-26. She replied, "okay, but I'm not doing anything." Id. J.P. and Appellant
proceeded to walk together to the Neshaminy Mall road sign on the outside of the mall. Id. at
25-27. When they arrived at the sign, Appellant pushed J.P. to the ground and climbed on top of
her. Id. at 27. Although J.P. told him that she "didn't want to do anything[,]" Appellant slid her
8
leggings off, removed his pants, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Id. at 27-28.
Appellant did not use a condom during the intercourse and threw J.P.'s cellphone away because
her best friend was calling her during the assault. Id. J.P. told Appellant that she did not want to
have sex, but Appellant "was trying to convince me that it was okay, that we were fine. And I
was really embarrassed and I started to cry and I told him no. And he kept on doing it and
wouldn't stop." Appellant eventually stopped because cars began to pass by the road sign. They
subsequently walked back to Sears. Id.
Appellant assaulted J.P. several additional times when she met him in a wooded area
between a graveyard and a CVS store in Bensalem, across the street from Neshaminy Mall. Id.
at 29-31. During the first incident in this location, J.P. again told him that she didn't want to
have sex. Id. When she tried to call her mother via cellphone, Appellant placed the cellphone
out of her reach. Id. As Appellant pulled down J.P. 's pants, she told him that she had "just
end[ed] her cycle" in an attempt to deter his advances. Id. at 62-63. However, Appellant
responded that this "turns him on." Id. Appellant subsequently climbed on top of J.P. while she
was on a "log" and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Id.
In a later incident at that location, Appellant repeatedly asked J.P. to perform oral sex
upon him. Id. at 32-33. While sitting together against a tree, Appellant unzipped his pants, took
out his penis and said, "try it." Id. at 34-35. When J.P. replied that she didn't want to perform
oral sex and that she was scared, Appellant put his hand behind her neck, pushed her head down
and forced her to perform oral sex on his penis. Id. When J.P. gagged and said that she felt sick,
they walked back to the Macy's Department Store at the Nesharniny Mall. Id. at 36-37.
On June 17, 2012, Appellant assaulted J.P. again when she met him at the Com wells
Heights Train Station in Bensalem, Bucks County. Id. at 40-43. While they were sitting in a
9
grassy area near the train station, Appellant attempted to pull her pants down as he climbed on
top of her. Id. at 43-45. As J.P. attempted to push him away and crawl backwards, Appellant
slid his left hand down the front of her pants, between her boxers and underwear, and touched
the outside of her vagina with his fingers. Id. J.P. felt "scared" and "hopeless" because "it
happened many times before, I couldn't stop it and I can't stop it again." Id. at 45-46. She
eventually pushed him hard, causing him to fall backwards, and she sat away from him so that
she could call her sister. Id. at 46. As she attempted the phone call, Appellant approached her
from behind and began to touch her chest through her shirt. Id. When J.P. told him to stop, he
replied that he wanted to have a threesome with her. Id. J.P. then stood up and began to walk
home, while the Appellant followed her on his bicycle. Id. at 47.
When she returned home, J.P. told her sister that the Appellant had raped her and that she
was afraid of him. Id. at 48, 81-83. Her mother and sister called the police, and Bensalem
Township Police Officer Katherine Deppenschmidt interviewed J.P. regarding the assault. Id. at
87-91. During the interview, Officer Deppenschmidt observed grass stains on J.P.'s underwear.
Id. at 91.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Rape by Forcible Compulsion, one count
oflnvoluntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion, and one count oflndecent
Assault by Forcible Compulsion.
D. Criminal Information No. 7968-2013
Victim S.R. met the Appellant on Facebook while she was a freshman at Bensalem High
School. N.T. 8/20/14, p. 90-93. S.R. recognized Appellant's last name on Facebook because she
was a classmate of Appellant's younger sister. Id. As they began to communicate via text
message, he asked her to be his girlfriend, and she agreed. Id. at 94. S.R. had previously
revealed to Appellant via text message that she was a virgin. Id. at 104.
10
On one occasion, S.R. was socializing with Appellant and several friends at the Bensalem
Public Library and neighboring public park. Id. at 96. Appellant asked S.R. to follow him to his
apartment, and she agreed. Id. After an approximately five-minute walk, they arrived at his
apartment in Bensalem. Id. at 98. The entrance to the apartment complex consisted of a door on
the ground floor to a common staircase, which then led to Appellant's second-floor apartment.
Id. at 96-99. When S.R. and Appellant ascended the stairs and attempted to enter the apartment,
they could not open the locked door. Id. at 99. Appellant called his brother on his cellphone to
ask whether he was available to unlock the door. His brother replied that he would not return
until a later time. Id.
After ending the call, Appellant turned to face S.R., pushed her against the wall opposite
to the door, and started to kiss her. Id. Appellant tried to put his hands down S.R. 's pants. She
said stop, and he eventually complied. Id. at 99-100. Appellant continued to kiss S.R., told her
to "relax," and attempted to put his hands down her pants a second time. She asked him to stop
again and attempted to push him away, but he persisted. Id. at 100. Appellant used his fingers to
penetrate S.R. 's vagina and lowered his pants. Id. at 100-101. S.R. said that they should stop
because they did not have a condom and "I didn't think it was a good idea [be]cause there was a
door right there." Id. Appellant replied, "no one lived down there" and repeated that she should
"relax." Id. When she told him to stop for the third time, Appellant pulled up his pants, sat
down on the stairs, and asked S .R. to sit next to him. Id. at 101-102.
When S.R. sat down, Appellant climbed on top of her, began to kiss her, and pulled his
pants down again. Id. at I 02. When S.R. protested again because they did not have a condom,
Appellant retrieved a condom from his wallet and put it on his penis. Id. Appellant then
penetrated S.R. 's vagina with his penis. When S.R. protested during intercourse, Appellant
11
replied that it was "fine," and that the pain she felt from intercourse was due to the use of the
condom. Id. at 102-103. S.R. felt "gross" during the incident, and recalled that Appellant
removed the condom at some point during sex. Id. at 103-105. They subsequently walked back
to the public park to rejoin their friends. Id. at l 05.
Appellant sexually assaulted S.R. again at his apartment at least three or four additional
times. During these incidents, he again ignored her requests for him to stop. Id. at 106. While
they continued to date, Appellant promised S.R. that he would not engage in sexual intercourse
with her because it made her feel upset. Nevertheless, they still engaged in intercourse following
Appellant's promise, even though S.R. did not consent to the intercourse. Id. at 110-111. She
subsequently ended the relationship because Appellant began to date another girl. Id. at 107.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault and one count of
Aggravated Indecent Assault without Consent.
E. Criminal Information No. 7969-2013
Victim M.L. first met the Appellant in 2011 while they were students at Foundations
Behavioral Health Partial Program. Id. at 34. She saw him again in April, 2011, just before her
fifteenth birthday, while socializing with friends at the Nesharniny Mall in Bensalem. Id. at 35-
40. When her friend left to go home, Appellant told M.L. that he had to show her something
outside, and led her to the parking lot. Id. ta 41-42. After a short walk through the mall's
parking lot, they arrived at an area M.L. described as a "ravine" near a roadside guardrail. Id. at
42. When they arrived, Appellant pushed M.L. to the ground and attempted to kiss her while
removing her sweatshirt and jeans. Id. at 4 7-48. She could not remember whether she told the
Appellant to stop. Id. at 48-49. Appellant eventually removed her clothes, unzipped his pants,
climbed on top of her and penetrated her vagina with his penis. Id.
12
Appellant penetrated her for several minutes before M.L. managed to free herself by
kicking him. Id. at 50. She subsequently managed to pull up her pants and run back to the
Barnes and Noble store at the mall. Id. at 50-52. While she walked around the store and waited
for her mother to pick her up, M.L. began to cry. Id. When her mother picked her up, M.L. was
initially too embarrassed to disclose the assault. Id. at 55-56. M.L. told the friend who
accompanied her to the mall, but the friend did not believe her. Id. M.L. eventually disclosed
the abuse again during outpatient group therapy at the Horsham Clinic in October, 2013, and the
disclosure was referred to the Bensalem Township Police Department. Id. at 56-58.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Rape by Forcible Compulsion, one count
of Sexual Assault, and one count of Indecent Assault without Consent.
F. Criminal Information No. 1877-2014
Victim C. S. first contacted Appellant through the website MeetMe in 2012 when she was
fifteen years old. Id. at 163-164. She first met the Appellant at the public park in front of the
Bensalem Township Police Department, and subsequently returned with him to his apartment.
Id. at 166-169. After socializing, C.S. had consensual sex with the AppelJant in his apartment.
Id. at 169-1 70.
C.S. met Appellant at his apartment again on April 20, 2013. Id. at 171-172. C.S.,
Appellant, and his sister were playing video games in the basement when the Appellant's sister
left to go upstairs. Id. at 173. After playing for a few minutes, Appellant said, "I'm bored," and
began to tickle and kiss C.S. Id. Although C.S. said, "stop, what are you doing," Appellant
lifted her shirt, kissed her stomach, and began to pull off her pants. Id. C.S. continued to say,
"come on, what are you doing, this is stupid, get off me," while the Appellant digitally
penetrated her vagina and performed oral sex on her. Id. at 173-174. Appellant ignored her
pleas for him to stop. Id. C.S. eventually pushed Appellant off and went home. Id. at 175. She
13
Received 11/13/2018 4:13:26 PM Superior Court Eastern District
Filed 11/12/2018 4:13:00 PM Superior Court Eastern District
762 EDA 2018
later disclosed the incident to her cousin as they walked from the Appellant's apartment to her
home. Id. at 177-178. Although C.S. returned to Appellant's home that evening to attend a
house party, she did not discuss the incident with Appellant because she wanted to "pretend it
didn't happen." Id. at 180-181. Bensalem Township Police eventually interviewed her
regarding this incident on June 18, 2012. Id. at 181.
Victim C.P. was a freshman student at Bensalem High School when she first met
Appellant through his sister. Id. at 130-131. In 2012, she went to the Appellant's apartment for
his eighteenth birthday party. Id. at 139-141. At the party, Appellant began to consume alcohol
and kissed C.P. They began to date shortly afterwards and communicated via text message. Id.
at 141-144. On a later occasion, C.P. went to Appellant's apartment and they performed anal sex
in the basement. She noted that her ''virginity was incredibly important to me, and he wanted to
do something, and me being a new girlfriend I wanted to make him happy .... " Id. at 144-145.
Within a few days of this initial contact, Appellant became more aggressive with C.P.
because he grew impatient with her desire to preserve her virginity. Id. at 146-147. C.P.
described a typical interaction as follows:
Well, we don't-when we got to his house, it started that he would always try and get me
in the basement and he would convince me to go down to the basement or he would like
pick me up trying to be cute and carry me down to the basement. And it would always
start with me going I don't really want to do this, and just very casually.
And then it would proceed to him-he would try and give me hickies. He like to leave
hickies everywhere on me, and he would start doing that. And after he would do that, he
would start to take my clothes off, and even then I would be telling him to stop.
Id. at 147. Appellant became "much more aggressive" in response to C.P.'s pleas for him to
stop. Id. Appellant told C.P. that kissing "always led up to sex. So that's always how it ended.
If he started kissing me at all, even a little bit, I knew we were going to end up having sex." Id.
at 148. During these interactions, C.P. constantly told Appellant that she did not want sexual
14
intercourse. He rejected her pleas and told her "how good things were feeling for him, or how
good things were going to feel for me, and how we bad to keep having sex so (C.P.] could get
used to it and it wouldn't hurt." Id.
During sex, Appellant would refuse to wear condoms, and always promised C.P. that he
would "pull out in time, and he would usually finish on my stomach." C.P. would be in frequent
pain during intercourse, and there would usually be blood on the mattress or on Appellant's body
because he was "really incredibly rough." Id. at 149. Appellant would frequently penetrate her
vagina with his fingers and attempt to put his hands down her pants "whether we were outside or
in his room. He was very grabby in public." Id. at 149-150.
AppelJant assaulted C.P. again in several other locations, including her father's office on
December 31, 2012, and in the woods behind a nearby retirement community during the
following week. Id. at 151. During one incident, Appellant pushed C.P ., carried her upstairs,
and held her up against the wall in the shower as he sexually assaulted her. Id. During these
assaults, Appellant would frequently hold C.P. by her neck and choke her as he penetrated her
vagina with his penis. On one occasion, she almost passed out from being choked. Id. at 151-
152. C.P. would usually cry during these encounters, prompting Appellant to say "don't worry
baby, I'm going to be done soon. It feels so good, I'm going to be done soon .... " Id.
Although Appellant frequently told C.P. that he "didn't mean for this to happen today. I know-
next time we're together I promise we won't have sex," he broke his promise to C.P.
"constantly." Id. at 153. Finally, on one occasion, C.P. screamed in Appellant's bedroom during
sex, prompting Appellant's sister to come downstairs to investigate. When his sister sat on the
steps where she could see the bed, Appellant told her to get out. Id. at 159.
15
C.P.'s parents eventually forced her to end the relationship because it became "very
apparent" that Appellant was abusive towards her. Id. at 159-160. In September, 2013, C.P.
disclosed the assaults when Detective Nieves pulled her out of her class to interview her
regarding the Appellant. Id. at 155.
Regarding victim C.S., the jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault,
one count of Aggravated Indecent Assault without Consent, and one count of Indecent Assault
without Consent. Regarding victim C.P., the jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual
Assault, one count of Aggravated Indecent Assault without Consent, and one count of Indecent
Assault without Consent.
G. Criminal Information No. 3264-2014
Victim K.P. met the Appellant through a mutual friend when she was seventeen years old
in 2011. Id. at 193-194. In September, after communicating with him via text message, she met
Appellant at the cemetery near the Nesbaminy Mall in Bensalem after school. Id. at 196. As
soon as she approached him, Appellant began to kiss her, which was acceptable to her. Id. at
197. Appellant continued to kiss K.P. when they sat down on a nearby bench to talk. Id. at 197.
As they sat on the bench, Appellant tried to unbutton and remove K.P. 's pants. She told him to
stop and tried to pull her pants back up. Id. at 198-199. Appellant eventually shoved K.P. to the
ground, pulled down her pants, and continued to unbutton them while on top of her. Id. at 199-
200. Although she initially said no, K.P. gave up because she believed "there was no point in
fighting him anymore." Id. at 200. Appellant then penetrated her vagina with his penis; he did
not use a condom and ejaculated inside of her. Id. at 200-201. After he ejaculated, Appellant
stood up, pulled up his pants and began to walk away "like nothing happened." Ml at 201. As he
walked away, he turned around and said to K.P., "I bet you're pregnant." Id.
16
Appellant sexually assaulted K.P. a second time in the cemetery one week later. Id. 202-
203. Appellant again did not use a condom and ejaculated inside of her. Id. at 204. Following
this second incident, K.P. did not contact Appellant again until six weeks later, when she
discovered that she was pregnant. Id. at 207. She did not have any other sexual partners during
this time. Id. When she disclosed her pregnancy to Appellant, he said that she "can't tell him
that because he just found out he had another girl pregnant." Id. She disclosed the assault for
the first time to her friend when she was six months' pregnant, and reported the assault to police
after viewing a news article about the Appellant on Facebook. Id. at 208-209.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault.
H. Criminal Information No. 3265-2014
Victim H. B. first met Appellant in the ninth or tenth grade while they were classmates at
the Valley Day School in Morrisville, Bucks County. Id. at 277-279. Appellant asked H.B. if
she wanted to date him, and she agreed. Id. at 279. While they dated, Appellant asked H.B.
whether she was a virgin, whether she was ever involved in a threesome, and her bra size. Id. at
280.
When she was sixteen years old, H.B. arranged to meet Appellant at the CVS store in
Bensalem through the Facebook Messenger application. Id. at 281. Appellant asked whether he
could take H.B. into a wooded area behind the store, but she declined. Id. at 282. H.B. started to
walk home because her mother called her on her cellphone and asked her to "check-in," or
physically report to her home once per hour so that her mother could verify H.B.'s well-being.
Id. at 282-283. Appellant replied that he would go home with her. Id. When they arrived at her
home in a nearby trailer park, Appellant walked around with H.B. and repeatedly asked her
whether she wanted to have sex. Id. at 284. Although H.B. repeatedly declined, Appellant "kept
asking so much that [she] finally said yes." Id.
17
Appellant and H.B. walked to a patch of bamboo trees behind a neighbor's house. He
began to kiss her and removed her shirt, followed by her bra, pants and underwear. Id. at 285.
When Appellant penetrated H.B. 's vagina with his penis, she felt "(u]ncomfortable and not ready
for it." Id. Approximately two minutes after they initiated intercourse, H.B. said no, but
Appellant ignored her and kept going. Id. Although H.B. told him that it hurt and she was in
pain, Appellant told her it "will only be a few more minutes, just let me keep going." Id. at 285-
286, 289. H.B. "basically just laid there and let him do it because I knew that I wasn't going to
be able to get myself away. I wasn't strong enough." Id. at 285-286. Appellant did not use a
condom and eventually ejaculated inside of her. Id. at 286-287. After he finished, H.B. felt
"disgusting" and "uncomfortable," and Appellant walked away as if nothing had happened. Id.
at 287.
A few months after the assault, H.B. discovered that she was pregnant. Id. at 288. When
she attempted to communicate with Appellant over Facebook, he "didn't want anything to do
with [her]." Id. She subsequently called Appellant on his cellphone to inform him of the
pregnancy. During the phone call, Appellant "started screaming at me and yelling at me and
calling me a fucking cunt, and that I need to get it aborted." Id.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault.
I. Criminal Information No. 3266-2014
Victim J.M. first met the Appellant on myyearbook.com in 2011 when she was seventeen
years old. Id. at 225-227. That year, J.M. was attending a baby shower at the Arbor Lane
Apartments in Trevose, Bucks County, when she agreed to meet the Appellant nearby. Id. at
228-230. She initially met Appellant in the parking lot of Arbor Lane Apartments with her
friend, although her friend returned to the baby shower shortly thereafter. IQ.,_ at 232-233. When
Appellant and J .M walked between two parked cars in the parking lot, he pushed her down onto
18
the grass between the two cars. Id. at 234. He then pulled down her pants, moved her underwear
to the side and performed oral sex upon her. Id. at 234-235. J.M. said, "no, stop, I have to go
back to the party," but Appellant ignored her and continued. Id. at 236.
She eventually crawled backwards, stood up, pulled her pants up and began to walk
away. Id. at 237. Appellant walked with her with his arm around her body, and led her to a
transformer box in the apartment complex. Id. at 237-238. Although J.M. told him repeatedly
that she needed to leave, he insisted that she move closer to him and the transformer box. Id.
When she approached him, he pushed her against a fence and the transformer box, pulled down
her sweatpants, and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. 238-240. As he held her
against the fence, J.M. struggled and kicked her legs so that she could get down. Id. at 239.
When she eventually freed herself, she walked away and returned to the baby shower. Id.
J.M. stayed at the baby shower for a few hours while communicating with the Appellant
via text message. Id. at 240-241. When she left the shower, he asked her to return to Arbor Lane
Apartments via text message. She later returned to the apartments in her stepfather's car. Id.
When they met in the center of the Arbor Lane Apartments parking lot, Appellant sat in the
passenger seat and directed J.M. to move the car to the back corner of the parking lot. Id. at 242.
After she moved the car, Appellant climbed into the back seat and asked her to join him. After
talking for a few moments, they removed their clothing and began to have sexual intercourse. Id.
at 243-244. Although J.M. initially consented to the intercourse, Appellant became rougher with
her. Id. at 244. She began to cry in pain and told him to stop, but he ignored her, saying that it
was "supposed to hurt." Id. at 244-246.
J.M. drove the Arbor Lane Apartments the following day, and continued to meet him
every day for the next week. Id. at 248-255. Each time, Appellant and J.M. engaged in sexual
19
intercourse in the car's back seat. J.M. told him to stop when he became rougher with her, and
cried several times when the sex became painful, but the Appellant ignored her pleas. Id. at 250-
254. On one occasion, while J.M. performed oral sex on his penis, Appellant would hold her
head down to the point where she could not breathe and began to choke; Appellant continued to
hold her head down nonetheless. Id. at 256. Although J.M. attempted to avoid the meetings by
telling Appellant she had to work, he repeatedly sent her text messages saying that he needed to
see her. Id. at 254-255. J.M. continued to see him because she "thought [she] deserved it." Id.
at 255. She did not disclose the sexual assaults to police until November, 2013, when she heard
of Appellant's arrest on the news, because she was afraid of him. Id. at 258-259.
The jury found Appellant guilty of one count of Sexual Assault.
II. PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
The following Juvenile Petitions were filed in the above referenced cases: on September
11, 2013, Juvenile Petition No. 456-2014;5 on September 16, 2013, Juvenile Petition Nos. 462-
20136 and 463-2013;7 on November 1, 2013, Juvenile Petition No. 543-2013;8 on November 4,
2013, Juvenile Petition No. 544-2013;9 on November 22, 2013, Juvenile Petition No. 567-
2013;10 and, on February 18, 2014, Juvenile Petition Nos. 63-201411 and 64-2014.12 The
Bensalem Township Police Department filed charges in Criminal Information No. 1877-2014 on
November 21, 2013.
5 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 7833-2013 following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
6 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 7832-2013 following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
7 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 7834-2013 following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
8 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 7968-2013
following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
9 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 7969-2013
following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
10
Docketed at Criminal Information No. 3264-2014 following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
11 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 3266-2014
following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
12 Docketed at Criminal Information No. 3265-2014 following a transfer to criminal proceedings.
20
On September 12, 2013, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Transfer Proceedings to
Criminal Court pursuant to 42 PaC.S. § 6355 regarding Juvenile Petition Nos. 456-2013, 462-
2013, and 463-2013. On November 18, 2013, the Commonwealth filed an Amended Motion to
Transfer Proceedings to Criminal Court regarding Juvenile Petition Nos. 543-2013 and 544-
2013. On November 25, 2013, this Court held a hearing and granted both Motions to Transfer.
We subsequently entered an Order to transfer the above-referenced cases to the Criminal C�urt
Division on December 4, 2013.
On February 18, 2014, the Commonwealth filed a second Motion to Transfer Proceedings
to Criminal Court regarding Juvenile Petition Nos. 56-2013, 63-2013, and 64-2013. On June 4,
2014, following a hearing, we granted the Commonwealth's Motion to Transfer. We granted the
Commonwealth's Motion to Consolidate all nine criminal cases for trial on June 30, 2014.
Appellant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion on August 13, 2014, followed by a
Supplemental Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion on August 15, 2014. In his initial Motion, Appellant
sought to preclude portions of his statement to investigators that contained the names of several
women that were not part of this case. The Motion further sought to suppress Appellant's
recorded prison phone calls and statements made to visitors while he was incarcerated. In his
Supplemental Motion, Appellant sought to preclude his statement to investigators that he
previously slept with 87 women. Appellant argued that all of these statements were irrelevant
and would be unduly prejudicial at trial.
On August 18, 2014, following opening statements, this Court addressed Appellant's
Motions in Limine. Regarding the admission that Appellant slept with 87 women, the
Commonwealth argued that this statement was relevant within the context of Appellant's
contemporaneous admissions of professed sex addiction, his motive, and the credibility of the
21
entire interview with the detectives. N.T. 8/18/14, pp. 53-58. We agreed that this individual
admission was relevant within the context of Appellant's entire statement and his sexual history.
Id. at 57-58. We noted, however, that we would give a cautionary instruction to the jury that "to
have multiple sexual partners is not a crime, nor is he charged with a crime as to [anyone] other
than the ten individuals that are part of this case." Id. at 57. We subsequently denied
Appellant's Motion in Limine regarding the reference to 87 women. N.T. 8/19/14, p. 6.
However, we granted Appellant's Motion regarding the specific names of the women not
involved with Appellant's case, and directed the Commonwealth to excise those names from the
Appellant's testimony. Id.
On August 22, 2014, following a five-day trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of three
counts of Rape, 13 two counts of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, 14 nine counts of Sexual
Assault,15 five counts of Aggravated Indecent Assault without Consent,16 five counts of Indecent
Assault without Consent, 17 and one count of Indecent Assault by Forcible Compulsion.18 N.T.
8/22/14, pp. 121-135. We deferred sentencing pending Appellant's assessment by the
Pennsylvania Sexual Offenders Assessment Board. Id. at 134.
On February 9, 2015, we sentenced Appellant as follows: in Criminal Information No.
7832-2013, four-and-one-half to nine years' incarceration on Count 1, Sexual Assault, and Count
2, Aggravated Indecent Assault without Consent, running concurrently with one another; in
Criminal Information No. 7833-2013, five to ten years' incarceration on Count I, Rape by
Forcible Compulsion, and a consecutive five to ten years' incarceration on Count 3, Involuntary
13
18 Pa.C.S. § 312l(a)(l).
14
18Pa.C.S.§3123(a)(l).
rs 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1.
16
18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(l).
17
18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(l).
18
18 Pa.C.S. § 3 l 26(a)(2).
22
Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion; in Criminal Information No. 7834-2013,
six-and-one-half to thirteen years' incarceration on Count 1, Rape by Forcible Compulsion, and
Count 2, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Forcible Compulsion, running concurrently
with one another; in Criminal Information No. 7968-2013, five to ten years' incarceration on
Count 1, Sexual Assault; in Criminal Information No. 7969-2013, six-and-one-half to thirteen
years' incarceration on Count l , Rape by Forcible Compulsion; in Criminal Information No.
1877-2014, five to ten years' incarceration on Count l, Sexual Assault, and a consecutive five to
ten years' incarceration on Count 2, Sexual Assault; in Criminal Information No. 3264-2014,
five to ten years' incarceration on Count 3, Sexual Assault; in Criminal Information No. 3265-
2014, five to ten years' incarceration on Count 6, Sexual Assault; and, in Criminal Information
No. 3266-2014, five to ten years' incarceration on Count 5, Sexual Assault. We ordered that the
sentences for each Criminal Information run consecutively with one another, resulting in an
aggregate sentence of 57 Yi to 115 years' incarceration. We imposed no further penalty on the
remaining counts that were not previously no/le prossed or withdrawn prior to sentencing.
No post-sentence motions were filed. On March 6, 2015, Appellant filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Superior Court. On September 21, 2015, Appellant filed a Praecipe for
Discontinuance and subsequently withdrew his appeal.
On September 12, 2016, Appellant filed a Petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief
Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. This Court issued an Order on January 24, 2017,
directing Appellant to file an Amended PCRA Petition. Appellant filed an Amended PCRA
Petition on February 24, 2017. On January 19, 2018, Appellant filed a second Amended PCRA
Petition. On February 5, 2018, upon agreement of the parties, this Court granted post-conviction
23
collateral relief in the form of reinstating Appellant's right to file a motion for reconsideration of
sentence and a direct appeal therefrom nunc pro tune.
On February 9, 2018, Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence.
Following a hearing held February 28, 2018, this Court denied Appellant's Motion. On March
12, 2018, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.
III. MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
On March 19, 2018, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(b) directing Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal. On April 19, 2018, Appellant filed such a Statement, which raised
the following issue, verbatim:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's Motion in Limine regarding
the statement that he had slept with "87 women".
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that this Court improperly denied his Motion in Limine to exclude an
admission to investigators that he had previously slept with 87 women. We find that this
statement was relevant to establish the context of the statements he made about the sexual
assaults of the ten victims and the reason that investigators took steps to identify additional
victims. We further find that the probative value of this statement outweighed its potential for
unfair prejudice, and that this Court's subsequent cautionary instruction to the jury ameliorated
any remaining prejudicial effect.
The decision to admit certain evidence is within the trial court's discretion and may not
be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Dengler, 890 A.2d 372,
379 (Pa. 2005). "An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court
might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or
24
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous."
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038, 1046 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted).
Pa.R.E. 401 provides that evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more
or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in
determining the action." 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, 808 A.2d 893, 904 (Pa.
2002) (citations omitted).
A court may exclude relevant evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs its
probative value. Pa.R.E. 403. The comment to Pa.R.E. 403 defines unfair prejudice as "a
tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its
duty of weighing the evidence impartially." Id. However, evidence will not be excluded merely
because it is harmful to the defendant. Rather, the evidence must be "so prejudicial that it would
inflame the jury to make a decision based upon something other than the legal propositions
relevant to the case." Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 750 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)
(citations omitted). A trial court is not required to "sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant
facts from the jury's consideration where those facts are relevant to the issues at hand and form
part of the history and natural development of the events and offenses for which the defendant is
charged." Id. at 752 (citations omitted). A determination of whether otherwise relevant
evidence should be excluded due to its potential for unfair prejudice "requires a fact-intensive,
context-specific inquiry." Commonwealth v. Hicks, 91 A.3d 47, 53 (Pa. 2014) (citing
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388 (2008)).
25
This Court properly admitted Appellant's statement that he had slept with 87 women
because it provided relevant context to Appellant's statement to detectives and his description of
his sexual history. Regarding his sexual past, Appellant described his first sexual experience
with a girl in Washington, and stated that he wished he could contact her so that she would
"know what she made me become ... a rapist." N.T. 8/19/14, pp. 268-269. Appellant further
admitted that kissing "always leads to sex" for him, that he had difficulty stopping sexual activity
when a girl tells him to stop, and that being told "no" fuels his desire for sex. Id. at 262, 271-
273. He noted that being told "no" during sexual intercourse reminds him of his first sexual
experience in Washington because he also "said no a lot" during the encounter. Id. at 270.
During the interview, Appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with several
victims known to investigators at the time: M.D., J.P., and R.A. Id. at 259, 263, 271-273.
Appellant further volunteered that he engaged in sexual intercourse with several victims
unknown to detectives at the time: S.R., C.P., and C.S. Id. at 273, 275-276, 278-279. Appellant
admitted that he became aggressive with several of the victims during intercourse. Id. at 265-
267, 270, 274. While volunteering his sexual encounters with victims known and unknown,
Appellant stated that he had sexual intercourse with 87 other women. Id. at 278-279. Out of
those 87 women, only "the virgins" said no to him during intercourse. Id. He identified M.D.,
S.R., C.P., J.P., and C.S., as the above-mentioned virgins, and noted that some of the other
virgins resided in Utah, Washington, and New Jersey. Id. at 279. Finally, when the detectives
asked Appellant to confirm whether he "managed to have sex with over 80 girls" since 20 I 0, he
answered, "[y[eah, 1 'm addicted to sex. Is there help available for it?" Id. at 280.
We denied Appellant's Motion in Limine and allowed the statement regarding 87 women
because it provided the jury with relevant context to understand how the police developed the
26
evidence in this case. Appellant's statement that he had slept with 87 women provided the
foundation for investigators to elicit information regarding victims known and unknown,
Appellant's past sexual history, and his testimony that only the virgins rebuffed his sexual
advances. Indeed, excising the statement would have likely confused the jury regarding the
history and development of the Commonwealth's case. If not for this statement and the
subsequent admissions that naturally followed, the identities of several victims would have
remained unknown to investigators. The detailed description of Appellant's sexual experience
was necessary for the jury to assess the believability and accuracy of the confession and the
weight to be given to it.
Additionally, our cautionary instruction to the jury diminished this admission's potential
for unfair prejudice. Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 666 (Pa. 2014) (holding
cautionary jury instruction may cure prejudicial effect of proffered evidence). Following the
introduction of the statement, we provided the following limiting instruction to the jury regarding
how they should consider the evidence of Appellant's prior sexual history:
Members of the jury, I wanted to caution you that there has been reference in this
testimony to sexual encounters with a number of women. This defendant is only charged
with sexual assaults often women, and there is no allegation that he has committed any
other crimes, nor should you consider that number as evidence of other crimes at this
time.
N.T. 8/19/14, pp. 285-286. Appellant's counsel affirmed that this instruction was acceptable. Id.We endeavored to characterize Appellant's statement in a way that avoided undue emphasis on
the nature of the sexual contact and the number of women involved. Id. Jurors are presumed to
have followed a trial court's instruction. Hairston, 84 A.3d at 666. While we were not required
to "sanitize" the trial of all damaging testimony, our instruction minimized the likelihood that
this statement would inflame the jury or cause it to convict him on an improper basis. Thus, this
27
statement was relevant within the context of Appellant's entire interview, and because its
probative value outweighed the potential for unfair prejudice, we properly denied Appellant's
Motion in Limine.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit that Appellant's argument is without
merit and his appeal should be denied.
BY THE COURT:
28