In Re: B.B. Appeal of: B.B.

J-S06012-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: B.B., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: B.B., A MINOR
No. 22 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered December 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): 2013-304
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J. and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015
Appellant, B.B., appeals from the December 12, 2013 dispositional
order committing him to a juvenile detention facility, following the court’s
adjudicating him delinquent of the offenses of rape, aggravated indecent
assault, and aggravated assault. Appellant seeks to raise a multitude of
claims on appeal. Additionally, his counsel, Timothy Peter Wile, Esq., has
filed a petition to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), as elucidated by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981), and amended in Commonwealth
v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we agree with counsel
that Appellant’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s
dispositional order and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw.
Appellant was adjudicated delinquent of the above-stated offenses
based on the following facts:
C.P. and [Appellant] were students at Wissahickon High
School, Montgomery County, PA, and had been acquainted for
approximately three or four years at the time the subject
incident occurred. Their relationship was characterized as one of
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06012-15
friends. On the afternoon of April 29, 2013, the students were
both in art class when [Appellant] asked C.P. if she wanted to go
for a walk. C.P. admitted that she asked her teacher for a note
to use the bathroom in order to leave class, and the two walked
to the audion, a small auditorium, at the school. In the few
minutes it took to walk from the classroom to the audion, C.P.
testified that [Appellant’s] speech turned “mumbly” and his eyes
were “red.” [Appellant] pushed C.P. onto the steps at the stage,
pulled down her pants, pulled down his pants, and raped and
sexually assaulted her. C.P. tried to get away, but [Appellant]
held her. This incident lasted approximately five [to] six
minutes, after which [Appellant] “ran away.” C.P. immediately
went to the school nurse’s office, where she ultimately told the
nurse of her rape by [Appellant].
Juvenile Court Opinion (JCO), 6/12/14, at 5 (citations to the record omitted).
After reporting the rape to the school nurse, C.P. “was taken to a
hospital where her injuries were determined [to be] severe, some of the
wors[t] the hospital doctor on duty and staff had ever seen, and required an
epidural (typically used for childbirth) so as to perform an examination.”
JCO at 15 (citations to the record omitted). Ultimately, C.P. required
sutures to repair the injuries to her vagina. See N.T. Adjudication Hearing,
10/8/13, at 14.
Based on these facts, the juvenile court adjudicated Appellant
delinquent of the above-stated offenses. Prior to Appellant’s dispositional
hearing, he retained new counsel, Paul Tressler, Esq.1 Following that
proceeding, a dispositional order was entered committing Appellant to the
____________________________________________
1
The Honorable Paul Tressler is a retired judge of the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County. For purposes of clarity, we will refer to him as
Attorney Tressler herein, but note his distinction as a former trial court
judge.
-2-
J-S06012-15
Northwestern Academy’s Safety, Empathy, Treatment (SET) program. On
Appellant’s behalf, Attorney Tressler filed both a timely notice of appeal, as
well as a timely Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal. Therein, Attorney Tressler raised 22 distinct claims. On June 12,
2014, the juvenile court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion. On July 24, 2014,
Attorney Tressler petitioned to withdraw from representing Appellant, which
the juvenile court granted. Attorney Wile of the Montgomery County Office
of the Public Defender then entered his appearance for Appellant on July 17,
2014. On October 15, 2014, Attorney Wile filed a petition to withdraw and a
lengthy Anders brief. Attorney Wile also filed with this Court copies of
letters he sent to both Appellant and Appellant’s mother, informing them
that he was seeking to withdraw and advising them that Appellant could
proceed pro se on appeal or retain private counsel. On October 24, 2014,
Appellant’s mother and father filed a document entitled “‘Urgent’ Petition for
Reconsideration of Additional Facts Filed by Prior Counsel.” Therein,
Appellant’s parents asked that this Court “reconsider” the issues raised in
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement and reject Attorney Wile’s petition to
withdraw.
“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review
the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
withdraw.” Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super.
2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa.
Super. 1997)).
-3-
J-S06012-15
Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under
Anders, counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements
established by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief must:
(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts,
with citations to the record;
(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes
arguably supports the appeal;
(3) set forth counsel's conclusion that the appeal is
frivolous; and
(4) state counsel's reasons for concluding that the appeal
is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of
record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that
have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Counsel also must provide a copy of
the Anders brief to his client. Attending the brief must be a
letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new
counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or
(3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the
court[']s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in
the Anders brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349,
353 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 704, 936 A.2d 40
(2007).
Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2014). After
confirming that counsel has satisfied these requirements, this Court must
then conduct its own review of the record and independently determine
whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous. Commonwealth v.
Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 594 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Instantly, Attorney Wile’s Anders brief provides a detailed summary of
the procedural history and facts of Appellant’s case with citations to the
record. It also includes a discussion of each of the 22 issues Appellant
presented in his Rule 1925(b) statement, and an explanation of Attorney
-4-
J-S06012-15
Wile’s conclusion that an appeal on Appellant’s behalf would be wholly
frivolous. Attorney Wile supports his rationale with citations to the record,
as well as relevant case law. He has also certified in his petition to withdraw
that he sent a copy of his Anders brief to Appellant, along with letters
advising both Appellant and his mother of the rights enumerated in
Nischan, 928 A.2d at 353. Therefore, we conclude that Attorney Wile has
complied with the requirements for withdrawal. Accordingly, we will now
independently review the merits of Appellant’s assertions, and also
determine whether there are any other issues he could arguably present on
appeal.
In Attorney Wile’s Anders brief, he divides the 22 claims presented in
Attorney Tressler’s Rule 1925(b) statement into the following four general
issues:
[(I)] Is [Appellant’s] adjudication of delinquency for the offences
[sic] of rape, aggravated indecent assault, and aggravated
assault supported by legally sufficient evidence of record?
[(II)] Did the Commonwealth’s attorney engage in prosecutorial
misconduct?
[(III)] Did the juvenile court’s errors deprive the juvenile of a
fair trial?
[(IV)] Was [Appellant’s] adjudication counsel ineffective, thus
entitling [Appellant] to a new adjudication hearing on all of the
charges?
Anders Brief at 5. We will address each of these issues in turn.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
-5-
J-S06012-15
After carefully reviewing the certified record, Attorney Wile’s Anders
brief,2 the juvenile court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we conclude that
the decision of the Honorable R. Stephen Barrett of the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County accurately disposes of Appellant’s challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence. See JCO at 14-17. Accordingly, we adopt
Judge Barrett’s rationale as our own in concluding that Appellant’s challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence is frivolous.
II. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Appellant’s general claim of prosecutorial misconduct encompasses the
following six discrete claims:
1. The Commonwealth withheld materials related to scientific
analysis of evidence submitted to a laboratory via a “Rape Kit,
which, upon information and belief, was exculpatory;[”]
2. The Commonwealth provided inaccurate video representations
of the physical actions of [Appellant] and the alleged Victim
immediately following the alleged incident, which were
misleading in that these representations were in “slow motion”
and as such it was impossible to determine whether the
person[s] depicted were engaged in normal ambulation, slow
walking, accelerated walking, running or some combination
thereof;
3. The Commonwealth failed to preserve and then produce the
alleged Victim’s school “Agenda Book[,”] knowing [the] same to
be a critical piece of potentially exculpatory evidence as to the
alleged Victim’s departure time from a classroom immediately
prior to the alleged incident, her reason for leaving, and her
truthfulness. Further, knowing the existence of said Agenda
____________________________________________
2
We note that the Commonwealth filed a letter, in lieu of a formal brief,
notifying this Court that it agrees with Attorney Wile that Appellant’s claims
are frivolous.
-6-
J-S06012-15
Book, and its import, the Commonwealth failed to take the
necessary precautions to preserve the evidence for trial.
Instead, critical pages were removed from the book, specific to
the time in question. Upon discovery of the missing pages [by]
the defence [sic], copies of the pages were obtained, however,
the[y] were excluded as evidence at trial because the “Agenda
Book” from which they had been torn had been returned to the
alleged victim and has no[w] reportedly disappeared entirely;
4. The Commonwealth failed to provide notice to the defence
[sic] of two (2) other occasions upon which the alleged Victim
made similar accusations against other persons, which would
have negated the imposition of the Rape Shield Act;
5. The Commonwealth prevented [Appellant] from facing his
accuser in Court by physically restricting the view he had of the
alleged Victim during her testimony;
6. The Commonwealth thwarted the ability of the defence [sic]
to effectively investigate the alleged incident by advising the
Commonwealth witnesses not to cooperate with defence [sic]
investigator[s] and improperly and untruthfully characterising
[sic] said investigators as “tricky and deceitful.[”]
Anders Brief at 23-24 (quoting Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/9/14, at 1-2).
Appellant’s first issue involving the Commonwealth’s purported
withholding of the results of a ‘Rape Kit’ analysis is waived, as the record
confirms that Appellant did not raise this allegation of prosecutorial
misconduct below. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower
court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). In any
event, even if this claim were preserved, we would agree with Attorney Wile
that it is frivolous. Essentially, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth
violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to turn over to
the defense an allegedly favorable Rape Kit analysis.
Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has an
obligation to disclose exculpatory information material to the
-7-
J-S06012-15
guilt or punishment of an accused, including evidence of an
impeachment nature. To establish a Brady violation, an
appellant must prove three elements:
(1) the evidence at issue was favorable to the accused,
either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches;
(2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either
willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued.
The burden rests with the appellant to prove, by reference
to the record, that evidence was withheld or suppressed by the
prosecution. The evidence at issue must have been material
evidence that deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Favorable
evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its
suppression by the government, if there is a reasonable
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense,
the result of the proceeding would have been different. A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.
Commonwealth v. Watkins, 2014 WL 7392224, *12 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2014)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the
Commonwealth possessed the results of a Rape Kit analysis. The only
mention of such evidence came from a nurse who examined the victim at
the hospital and testified that she collected a swab of a “brown substance”
from the victim’s vagina, turned the swab over to the police, and “[t]hat was
the last time [she] saw it[.]” See N.T., 10/8/13, at 44-45. There is no
indication in the record that the swabs were then sent to a laboratory for
analysis, or that the Commonwealth received any results of such testing.
Based on this record, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that evidence of a
Rape Kit analysis even exists, let alone that the results thereof were
favorable to his defense, and that they were suppressed by the
-8-
J-S06012-15
Commonwealth either willfully or inadvertently. Accordingly, even had
Appellant preserved this claim for our review, we would deem it frivolous.
Next, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth committed misconduct
by presenting video recordings that were ‘misleading.’ Initially, as both the
juvenile court and Attorney Wile point out, it was Appellant who sought
admission of the challenged video recordings, marked as defense exhibits D-
5 through D-8. See Anders Brief at 26; JCO at 8. Moreover, when the
recordings were admitted into evidence, the Commonwealth explained to the
court that the videos appeared “slowed down” because the “recording
mechanism” used by the school “only records every few seconds….” N.T.,
10/7/13, at 169. Nothing in the record indicates that the Commonwealth
manipulated the video recordings and then presented them as evidence.
Accordingly, Appellant’s second claim of prosecutorial misconduct is
frivolous.
Appellant’s third allegation of prosecutorial misconduct involves the
victim’s ‘Agenda Book.’ As Attorney Wile explains, “each student at
Wissahickon High School must keep an Agenda Book that records the time,
date and location where the student is going[,] and the respective teacher
initials the entry.” Anders Brief at 28 (citing N.T., 10/8/13, at 62).
Appellant sought to introduce the victim’s Agenda Book “to show that she
was excused from class to go to the nurse’s office to obtain medication[,]”
not to go to the bathroom, as she had testified. Id. In other words, the
Agenda Book would have impeached the victim’s testimony and challenged
-9-
J-S06012-15
her overall credibility. While Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement is rather
confusing on this issue, it appears that he believes the Commonwealth failed
to properly preserve, locate, and/or present the victim’s Agenda Book to the
defense.
We characterize Appellant’s claim as essentially alleging that the
Commonwealth committed a Brady violation. However, Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Commonwealth withheld or suppressed the victim’s
Agenda Book. As Attorney Wile points out, Appellant did not seek the
victim’s Agenda Book during pretrial discovery; instead, he waited until the
first day of the adjudication hearing to request that book. See N.T.,
10/8/13, at 186. In response, the Commonwealth had the victim look for
the book at her home, but she was unable to locate it. Id. at 183. Nothing
in the record indicates that the Commonwealth possessed the book and
withheld it from the defense.
Moreover, while the Agenda Book may have been favorable to
Appellant, in that it could have challenged the victim’s credibility, there is
not a reasonable probability that it would have changed the result of the
proceeding. The juvenile court states in its opinion that it found the victim
to be an ‘incredibly credible’ witness, who maintained her
composure in the face of extensive cross-examination, appeared
truthful and honest, and if she thought she had said something
differently in the past, [she] acknowledged it. The cross-
examination was aggressive, with [d]efense counsel raising his
voice and at times calling C.P. a liar. C.P. appeared anxious and
scared but managed to answer questions promptly and rarely
appeared uncertain, confused, or evasive. While her statements
contained some inconsistencies, the inconsistencies did not
- 10 -
J-S06012-15
concern the rape itself as no evidence was presented which
indicated that she stated it was consensual. As testified to by
the hospital staff, C.P.’s injuries were consistent with the history
she provided. The [court] believed her testimony based on her
credibility.
JCO at 16-17. Based on the court’s discussion, it is extremely unlikely that
the ostensible impeachment evidence in the victim’s Agenda Book would
have changed the court’s overall assessment of the victim’s credibility.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Brady claim is frivolous.
Appellant next contends that the Commonwealth committed
misconduct by failing to notify the defense that the victim made sexual
assault complaints against two other individuals. The record indicates that
this claim was first raised in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement; thus, it is
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Nevertheless, we would again characterize
Appellant’s argument as a Brady claim, and conclude that it is frivolous. As
the juvenile court points out, “[t]here is no support in the record that the
Commonwealth failed to notify the defense of any other accusations the
victim made against other persons.” JCO at 10. Because Appellant has not
even demonstrated that the Commonwealth possessed evidence or
information that the victim made two prior assault allegations, his claim of
prosecutorial misconduct is frivolous.
Next, Appellant maintains that the Commonwealth committed
misconduct by positioning the victim in such a way during her testimony that
Appellant was unable to see her. This assertion is waived, as Appellant did
- 11 -
J-S06012-15
not object to the positioning of the victim during the adjudication hearing.
See JCO at 10; N.T., 10/7/13, at 26-27; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
In Appellant’s sixth, and final, claim of prosecutorial misconduct, he
avers that “the Commonwealth hampered his ability to investigate the
underlying incident [of the victim’s sexual assault] as a result of the
Commonwealth[’s] instructing its witnesses not to speak to defence [sic]
investigators.” Anders Brief at 35. We ascertain nothing in the record to
support Appellant’s bald allegation; accordingly, we agree with Attorney Wile
that this claim is frivolous.
III. Juvenile Court Errors
Appellant’s next general issue encompasses the following seven claims
for our review:
1. The juvenile court erred by improperly allowing the
prosecutorial misconduct detailed in Argument II, supra;
2. The juvenile court erred by allowing the Commonwealth’s
attorney to persistently engage in speaking objections that
equated to testimony and that provided responses from the
alleged victim that were, in fact, crafted by the prosecuting
attorney;
3. The juvenile court erred by regularly failing to rule upon
objections posed by defence [sic] counsel and by instead
directing respective counsel to reach [an] agreement amongst
themselves;
4. The juvenile court erred by engaging in an improper ex parte
communication in chambers with the prosecuting attorney and
Commonwealth witnesses, including but not limited to, the lead
investigator in this matter, immediately prior to reaching a
verdict in this matter;
- 12 -
J-S06012-15
5. The juvenile court erred in adjudicating [Appellant] delinquent
of the enumerated offenses because the Commonwealth failed to
meet its burden of establishing [Appellant’s] guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and that the evidence presented was
insufficient to prove [Appellant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt;
6. The juvenile court erred by preventing [Appellant] from facing
his accuser in court by physically obstructing the view he had of
the alleged victim and the view she had of him during her
testimony, thereby violating [Appellant’s] constitutional right to
confront his accuser under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, and the corresponding rights afforded by the
Pennsylvania Constitution; and
7. The juvenile court improperly advocated for the
Commonwealth during the trial and was impermissibly in favour
[sic] of the Commonwealth.
Anders Brief at 37-38 (quoting Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/9/14, at 3-4).
Appellant first contends that the court erred by permitting the
prosecutorial misconduct discussed, supra. Because we concluded that each
of Appellant’s prosecutorial misconduct claims were either waived and/or
frivolous, his contention that the juvenile court erred in this regard is also
waived and/or frivolous for the same reasons.
Next, Appellant argues that the juvenile court erred by allowing
repeated ‘speaking objections’ by the Commonwealth. Because Appellant
did not indicate in his Rule 1925(b) statement where these ostensibly
improper objections occurred in the record, the court found this claim
waived as “too vague” to address. JCO at 12 (citing Commonwealth v.
Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa. Super. 2001) (finding the appellant’s
issue waived where his Rule 1925(b) statement was “not specific enough for
the trial court to identify and address the issue [the] [a]ppellant wished to
- 13 -
J-S06012-15
raise on appeal”)). The court also noted that Appellant failed to indicate
where he challenged the Commonwealth’s ‘speaking objections’ below; thus,
the court concluded Appellant’s claim was waived on this basis, as well. Id.
(citing Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59, 73 (Pa. 2008)
(considering “any issue waived where [the] [a]ppellant failed to assert a
timely objection”)). We agree with the juvenile court’s waiver
determination.
Appellant also argues that the juvenile court erred by “consistently
refus[ing] to rule upon objections interposed by his defence [sic] counsel, …
and instead urged respective counsel to work out their differences.” Anders
Brief at 42-43 (citation omitted).3 The juvenile court appropriately
concludes that this claim is waived, as defense counsel never challenged (or
objected to) the court’s addressing objections in this manner. See JCO at
____________________________________________
3
The juvenile court discussed one example of this type of ruling, stating:
The Court recessed for counsel to discuss Exhibit D-9, which
contained text messages, to determine if they could reach an
agreement on the admissibility of the testimony. The Court
requested this discussion occur as Exhibit D-4 (also text
messages) unnecessarily delayed the proceedings. As with
Exhibit D-4, Exhibit D-9 contained multiple texts which
[Appellant] did not intend to use in questioning of the witness.
Counsel acknowledged the situation with Exhibit D-4 by
stating[,] “I’ve numbered this time, without trying to screw this
up again.” The Court then state[d,] “You may agree.” If counsel
could not agree, the Court would rule on the objections.
JCO at 13.
- 14 -
J-S06012-15
12-13. In any event, we would not deem the court’s handling of objections
legally improper, as the court simply requested that the parties attempt to
reconcile their disputes before it intervened to rule on the objection(s).
Accordingly, this claim is waived and/or frivolous.
Appellant next argues that the juvenile court improperly engaged in ex
parte communications with the Commonwealth and its witnesses just prior
to rendering its verdict. As Attorney Wile points out, nothing in the record
supports this claim or suggests any improper communication by the juvenile
court. Moreover, at no point did Appellant object to these purported
communications, or present any other evidence establishing that such ex
parte communications occurred. Consequently, this issue is frivolous.
In his fifth claim of court error, Appellant essentially challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his adjudication of delinquency. We
addressed this claim under Appellant’s first general issue, above.
Next, Appellant avers that the juvenile court deprived him of his right
to confront witnesses against him by positioning the victim in such a way
during her testimony that Appellant was unable to see her. For the reasons
stated, supra, any challenge to the positioning of the victim on the witness
stand was waived based on Appellant’s failure to object.
In his seventh claim of error, Appellant maintains that the juvenile
court “improperly advocated for the Commonwealth and was biased in
favour [sic] of the Commonwealth.” Anders Brief at 49. Nothing in the
record supports this bald assertion; consequently, it is frivolous.
- 15 -
J-S06012-15
(IV) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In Appellant’s fourth general issue, he raises multiple claims of
defense counsel’s ineffectiveness. Initially, we note that “[b]ecause of a
juvenile’s lack of access to collateral review, we have concluded that it is
necessary to review a juvenile’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on
direct appeal, when properly raised.” In re K.A.T., Jr., 69 A.3d 691, 697
(Pa. Super. 2013). We also declared in K.A.T., Jr., that a juvenile appellant
may assert ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the first time in his or
her Rule 1925(b) statement. Id. at 698-699. Thus, it appears that
Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly preserved
for our review. Those claims include the following:
1. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective by failing to file a Motion
for Recusal of the [Juvenile Court] Judge and request an
evidentiary hearing based upon indications of the prospect of a
premature judgment and/or other irregularities that may have
served to deprive [Appellant] of a fair trial.
2. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective in failing to raise timely
and appropriate objections to the conduct of the prosecuting
attorney as set forth above and herein including, but not limited
to:
a. The failure [o]f the Commonwealth to produce the
results of the analysis of the “Rape Kit[;”]
b. The failure of the Commonwealth to produce the
“Agenda Book[;”]
c. The failure of the Commonwealth to produce accurate
video representations at trial; and
d. The improper conduct of the Commonwealth in
preventing defence [sic] investigators from interviewing
Commonwealth witnesses in an unimpeded fashion.
- 16 -
J-S06012-15
3. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective in failing to fully and
adequately investigate the prior conduct of the alleged Victim in
terms of her making similar allegations against at least two (2)
other individuals in the past.
4. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce
any evidence of [Appellant’s] mental disabilities and cognitive
impairments so as to potentially negate the “intent” element of
the offences [sic] charged.
5. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective in engaging in a colloquy
with [Appellant] regarding his right to testify in his defence [sic],
in light of [Appellant’s] mental disabilities and cognitive
impairments. This was compounded by the fact that the
colloquy was conducted without [Appellant’s] parents[’]
confirming on the record his understanding of the consequences
of his decision not to testify.
6. Defence [sic] counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the
conduct of the trial overall which, as detai[l]ed above and
herein, deprived [Appellant] of his constitutional right to a fair
and objective trial and a determination by an impartial fact-
finder.
Anders Brief at 52-53 (quoting Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/9/14, at 4-5).
We assess ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the following
standard:
With regard to ineffectiveness claims, counsel is presumed to be
effective, and the appellant bears the burden of proving
otherwise. In re A.D., 771 A.2d 45, 50 (Pa. Super. 2001). In
reviewing ineffectiveness claims:
[W]e must first consider whether the issue underlying the
charge of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit. If not, we
need look no further since counsel will not be deemed
ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue. If there is
arguable merit to the claim, we must then determine
whether the course chosen by counsel had some
reasonable basis aimed at promoting the client's interests.
Further, there must be a showing that counsel's
ineffectiveness prejudiced Appellant's case. The burden of
producing the requisite proof lies with Appellant.
- 17 -
J-S06012-15
Id. (citations omitted).
K.A.T., Jr., 69 A.3d at 699.
Appellant’s first claim of ineffectiveness, as raised in his Rule 1925(b)
statement, is too vague to demonstrate arguable merit warranting further
examination by the juvenile court or this Court. Appellant contends that
defense counsel should have moved for the recusal of the juvenile court
judge, and “request[ed] an evidentiary hearing based upon indications of the
prospect of a premature and/or other irregularities that may have served to
deprive [Appellant] of a fair trial.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 1/9/14, at 4.
Appellant’s concise statement does not sufficiently specify what ‘indications’
there were of a premature judgment, or describe what ‘other irregularities’
occurred, that would have supported a motion for recusal (or even a hearing
on such a motion). Furthermore, our review of the record reveals nothing
that would support such a motion by defense counsel. Accordingly, this
claim is frivolous.
Appellant next avers that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
“incidents of prosecutorial misconduct” by the Commonwealth. More
specifically, he challenges counsel’s failure to object to the Commonwealth’s
ostensible withholding of both the Rape Kit analysis, as well as evidence that
the victim made two prior allegations of sexual assault against other
individuals. As we discussed supra, nothing in the record supports that such
evidence existed, that the Commonwealth possessed it, or that the
Commonwealth withheld it from the defense. Without something
- 18 -
J-S06012-15
demonstrating these facts, we cannot conclude that defense counsel acted
improperly regarding these bald allegations. Consequently, these assertions
of ineffectiveness are frivolous.
Appellant also argues that defense counsel acted improperly by not
challenging the Commonwealth’s failure to produce the victim’s school
Agenda Book. Again, as discussed supra, the record belies Appellant’s claim
that the Commonwealth committed objectionable misconduct regarding this
evidence. Moreover, Attorney Wile points out that defense counsel “did
vigorously argue this issue at the adjudication hearing and even asked [the
court] to take an adverse inference against the Commonwealth as a result of
its failure to produce [the victim’s] Agenda Book.” Anders Brief at 59. The
record supports Attorney Wile’s discussion of this issue, and we agree with
him that it would be frivolous to argue that defense counsel’s representation
was inadequate regarding this evidence.
Next, Appellant avers that defense counsel acted ineffectively by not
objecting to the ostensibly inaccurate video recordings played during the
adjudication hearing. As discussed previously, the record does not support
Appellant’s assertion that the video recordings were inaccurate or
misleading. Moreover, the juvenile court indicates in its opinion that it did
not rely on the video recordings, but instead focused on the victim’s
testimony. See JCO at 8. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated that
this claim has arguable merit, or that he was prejudiced by counsel’s
purported error in this regard.
- 19 -
J-S06012-15
Appellant also maintains that defense counsel was ineffective for not
objecting to the Commonwealth’s advising its witnesses not to cooperate
with defense investigators, which “hampered and hindered” Appellant’s
ability to prepare a defense. Anders Brief at 60. We have already
concluded that there is nothing in the record to support Appellant’s
allegation that the Commonwealth acted in such a manner. Accordingly,
Appellant has failed to prove that this assertion of ineffectiveness has
arguable merit.
Appellant next avers that defense counsel acted improperly by “not
adequately investigating [the victim’s] history and prior conduct and
discovering that she had previously made rape accusations against two (2)
individuals other than [Appellant].” Anders Brief at 61. As stated supra,
nothing in the record evinces that the victim actually made such prior
allegations against other individuals. Without some sort of evidence of this
fact, we decline to deem defense counsel ineffective for failing to go on a
fishing expedition for this purported evidence. Consequently, this
ineffectiveness claim is frivolous.
The same is true for Appellant’s next two claims of counsel’s
ineffectiveness, which involve the impact of Appellant’s purported ‘mental
disabilities and cognitive impairments’ on the intent element of the offenses
for which he was convicted, and the validity of Appellant’s waiver of his right
to testify. As Attorney Wile points out, “the record in this case reveals no
evidence of any mental impairment or cognitive impairment suffered by
- 20 -
J-S06012-15
[Appellant].” Anders Brief at 62. Therefore, we ascertain no arguable
merit to Appellant’s claim that he was so mentally disabled that he could not
form the intent to commit the crimes of which he was convicted.
Additionally, upon reviewing the colloquy regarding Appellant’s waiver of his
right to testify, nothing suggests that Appellant did not understand what was
taking place or the import of the right he was waiving. See N.T., 10/8/13,
at 155-156. Accordingly, we agree with Attorney Wile that Appellant’s claim
of defense counsel’s ineffectiveness regarding Appellant’s ostensible mental
deficiencies lacks arguable merit.
Finally, Appellant makes a very general allegation that defense counsel
was ineffective for “failing to object to the conduct of the trial overall which,
as detai[l]ed above and herein, deprived [Appellant] of his constitutional
right to a fair and objective trial and a determination by an impartial fact-
finder.” Anders Brief at 53 (citation omitted). The juvenile court states in
its opinion that it “never formed a premature judgment or was in any way
prejudiced against Appellant. The [c]ourt conducted a fair hearing and
decided the case upon the testimony of witnesses.” JCO at 19. Nothing in
the record belies the juvenile court’s characterization of the fairness of the
adjudication proceeding, or the court’s assertion that it impartially judged
the evidence before reaching a verdict. Consequently, this claim of defense
counsel’s ineffectiveness lacks arguable merit.
Having independently assessed each of Appellant’s numerous claims of
insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, court error, and ineffective
- 21 -
J-S06012-15
assistance of counsel, we agree with Attorney Wile that Appellant’s claims
are frivolous.4 Additionally, we ascertain no other issue(s) of arguable merit
that Appellant could present on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the
dispositional order entered on December 12, 2013, and grant Attorney Wile’s
petition to withdraw.
Dispositional order affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum.
Justice Fitzgerald concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/24/2015
____________________________________________
4
As stated supra, Appellant’s parents filed with this Court a document
entitled “‘Urgent’ Petition for Reconsideration of Additional Facts Filed by
Prior Counsel” in which they asked this Court to ‘reconsider’ the issues raised
in Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement and reject Attorney Wile’s petition to
withdraw. Based on our disposition herein, we deny that petition.
- 22 -
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
"--'
mVENILE COURT =
J'"
,-
,-
In the interest ofB.B. No. 2013-304 r-v
-D
~"
OPINION . fA- N
--
BARRETT,J. JUNE/2 2014 U1
-'
B.B. (hereinafter: "B.B." or "Appellant") appeals f)'om this court's adjudication Order of
November 25,2013 adjudicating him delinquent of charges ofrape (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(a)(I»,
aggravated indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3125(a)(2», and aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2702 (a)(I» and Disposition Order of December 12,2013, committing him to the N0l1hwestern
S.E.T. Program. B.B. filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, raising
three main issues with various sub-issues:
1. Prosecutorial Misconduct:
a) The Commonwealth withheld materials related to scientific analysis of evidence
submitted to a laboratory via a "Rape Kit", which, upon information and belief, was exculpatory;
b) The Commonwealth provided inaccurate video representations of the physical actions
of the Defendant and the alleged Victim immediately following the alleged incident, which were
misleading in that these representations were in "slow motion" and as such it was impossible to
determine whether the persons depicted were engaged in nonnal ambulation, slow walking,
accelerated walking, running or some combination thereof;
c) The Commonwealth failed to preserve and then produce the alleged Victim's school
"Agenda Book", knowing same to be a critical piece of potentially exculpatOlY evidence as to the
alleged Victim's depa11ure time from a classroom immediately prior to the alleged incident, her
reasons for leaving, and her truthfulness. Further, knowing of the existence of said Agenda Book,
. ~:)f "
'--~---;J----
~)2;'.;. (,',:\.::;,.~.~ .jij\;
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
and its import, the Commonwealth failed to take the necessary precautions to preserve the
evidence for trial. Instead, critical pages were removed from the book, specific to the time in
question. Upon discovery of the missing pages by the defense, copies of those pages were
obtained, however, they were excluded as evidence at trial because the "Agenda Book" from
which they had been tom, had been retumed to the alleged Victim and now has repOliedly
disappeared entirely.
d) The Commonwealth failed to provide notice to the defense of two (2) other occasions
upon which the alleged Victim made similar accusations against other persons, which would
have negated the imposition or the Rape Shield Act.
e) The Commonwealth prevented the Defendant from facing his accuser in COUli by
physically restricting the view he had of the alleged Victim during her testimony.
f) The Commonwealth thwarted the ability of the defense to effectively investigate the
alleged incident by advising Commonwealth witnesses to not cooperate with defense
investigators and improperly and untmthfully characterizing said investigators as "tricky and
deceitful. "
2. Errors Committed by the Trial Court:
a) The Trial Court ened by improperly allowing the prosecutorial misconduct detailed
above to be committed unchecked;
b) The Trial Court erred by allowing the Commonwealth's attorney to persistently engage
in speaking objections which equated to testimony and which provided responses from the
alleged Victim that were in fact crafted by the prosecuting attorney.
c) The Trial COUli erred by regularly failing to rule upon objections posed by defense
counsel, and by instead directing respective counsel to reach agreement among themselves.
2
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
d) The Trial Comi elTed by engaging in an improper ex parte communication in
chambers with the prosecuting attorneys and Commonwealth witnesses, including but not limited
to the lead investigator in the matter, immediately prior to rendering a verdict in this matter;
e) The Trial Couti en·ed in adjudicating the Juvenile delinquent of the enumerated
offenses because the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of establishing the Juvenile's guilt
of such offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove
the Juvenile's guilt of said offenses beyond a reasonable doubt;
f) The Trial Court erred by preventing the Defendant from facing his accuser in Comi by
physically obstmcting the view he had of the alleged victim and the view she had of him during
her testimony, thereby violating the Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser
under the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the corresponding rights afforded by the
Pennsylvania Constitution.
g) The Trial Court improperly advocated for the Commonwealth during the trial, and was
impermissibly biased in favor of the Commonwealth.
The Undersigned, upon a thorough review of the record, respectfully submits that this
claim is without merit.
3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
a) Defense counsel was ineffective by failing to file a Motion for Recusal of the Trial
Judge and request an evidentiary hearing based upon indications of the prospect ofa premature
judgment andlor other inegularities that may have served to deprive the Defendant of a fair trial;
b) Defense counsel was ineffective in failing to raise timely and appropriate objections to
the conduct of the prosecuting attorney as set fotih above and herein, including, but not limited
to:
3
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
i) the failure of the Commonwealth to produce the results of the analysis of the
"Rape Kit";
ii) the failure ofthe Commonwealth to produce the "Agenda Book";
iii) the failure of the Commonwealth to provide accurate video representations at
trial;
iv) the improper conduct of the Commonwealth in preventing defense
investigators from interviewing Commonwealth witnesses in an unimpeded fashion.
c) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to fully and adequately investigate the prior
conduct of the alleged Victim in telms of her making similar allegations against at least two (2)
other individuals in the past;
d) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce any evidence of Defendant's
mental disabilities and cognitive impairments so as to potentially negate the "intent" aspect of
the offenses charged;
e) defense counsel was ineffective in engaging in a colloquy with the Defendant
regarding his right to testify in his defense, in light of the Defendant's mental disabilities and
cognitive impairments. This was compounded by the fact that the colloquy was conducted
without the Defendant's parents confirming on the record his understanding of the consequences
of his decision not to testify.
f) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the conduct of the trial overall
which, as detailed above and herein, deprived the Defendant of his constitutional right to a fair
and objective trial and a determination by an impatiial fact-finder.
4
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
FACTS
C.P. and B.B. were students at Wissahickon High School, Montgomery County, PA, and
had been acquainted for approximately three or four years at the time the subject incident
occurred. Their relationship was characterized as one of friends. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 28, 29). On the
afternoon of April 29, 2013, the students were both in art class when B.B. asked C.P. ifshe
wanted to go for a walk. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 32, 33). C.P. admitted that she asked her teacher for a
note to use the bathroom in order to leave class, and the two walked to the audion, a small
auditorium, at the school. (NT. 10.7.13, p. 34). In the few minutes it took to walk from the
classroom to the audion, C.P. testified that B.B.'s speech turned "mumbly" and his eyes were
"red." (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 38,39). B.B. pushed C.P. onto the steps at the stage, pulled down her
pants, pulled down his pants, and raped and sexually assaulted her. C.P. tried to get away, but
B.B. held her. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 41, 44, 45). This incident lasted approximately five-six minutes,
after which B.B. "ran away." C.P. immediately went to the school nurse's office, where she
ultimately told the nurse of her rape by B.B. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 47).
A Juvenile Petition charging B.B. with rape pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(1),
involuntary deviate sexual assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a)(1), aggravated assault
. pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702 (a)(1), aggravated indecent assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3125(a)(2), indecent assault pursuant to § 3126(a)(2), simple assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2701 (a)(1), and recklessly endangering another person pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705 was filed
on May 1,2013. The Honorable Jolm L. Braxton, Senior Judge held Detention Proceeding on
May 1,2013 releasing B.B. to the care of his mother and father. The Undersigned modified the
above-mentioned Order on May 8, 2013 further clarifying the terms ofB.B.'s release to his
parents, such as ordering him to have no contact with c.P. in person, by phone, by electronic
5
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
devices or a third pat1y by agreement of the pat1ies, and ftll1her ordering him to avoid
Wissahickon High School grounds. The Undersigned issued a Plea Summons on May 15,2013.
The Honorable S. Gerald Corso, Senior Judge Ordered B.B. to be detained at the Montgomery
County Youth Center on June 4, 2013. The Commonwealth filed a Petition to Transfer the
proceedings to Adult Criminal COUl1, which following a Certification Hearing on July 17, 2013,
the Undersigned denied by Order of September 11,2013.
The adjudication hearing was held on October 7-9, 2013. The Undersigned announced his
decision in adjudicating B.B. delinquent ofrape, aggravated indecent assault, and aggravated
assault on the record on October 9, 2013 (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 3,4). The Undersigned declined to
adjudicate B.B. delinquent of the other charges brought. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 4). This decision is
also reflected by the Undersigned's Juvenile COUl1 Order - Adjudication of October 8, 2013, and
reflects that all other charges were dismissed. Additionally, the Undersigned declined to
adjudicate B.B. delinquent of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. B.B. retained new counsel
for the purposes of disposition and appeal. The Undersigned entered his Order of Disposition on
November 25, 2013, and signed the Order of Commitment on December 12,2013, committing
him to the NOl1hwestern S.E.T. Program. It is from these Orders that B.B. filed the instant,
timely appeal to the Superior COUl1 of Pennsylvania on December 26, 2013. The Undersigned
issued an Order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing B.B. to file a Concise Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal, which was timely and duly filed on January 9, 2014.
6
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
DISCUSSION
The Undersigned will address Appellant's claims in the order presented by his Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, beginning with his allegations of Prosecutorial
Misconduct. At the outset, the Undersigned notes that many of the issues raised by Appellant are
not contained in the record. FUl1her, both trial counsel and disposition/Appellate counsel for B.B.
had ample opportunity to raise these issues and/or object for the record at the close of the
Adjudication Hearing on October 9, 2013 and at the Disposition Hearing on November 25,2013,
yet failed to do so.
1. Prosecutorial Misconduct
a) The Commonwcalth withheld materials related to scientific analysis of evidcnce
submitted to a laboratory via a "Rape Kit", which, upon information and belief, was
exculpatory
The Undersigned has no knowledge or information regarding this claim of error, and
therefore cannot respond to this contention of error.
In the matter sub judice, the Commonwealth did not introduce the results of the "Rape
Kit" during the adjudication hearing and further, the Undersigned had no knowledge or
information regarding the results. The Commonwealth witnesses from the hospital where C.P.
was treated following the incident testified on cross-examination that they took swabs of a
substance from C.P., but did not know anything of the result. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 45). The
Undersigned is unaware whether the Commonwealth submitted the swabs for· scientific analysis.
The issue was not raised before the Trial COUli and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), carillot be
raised for the first time on appeal.
b) The Commonwealth provided inaccurate video representations of the physical
7
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
actions of the Defendant and the alleged Victim immediately following the alleged incident,
which were misleading in that these representations were in "slow motion" and as such it
was impossible to determine whether the persons depicted were engaged in normal
ambulation, slow walking, accelerated walking, running or some combination thereof
The COUli is unaware of who originally provided the video Exhibits marked D-5 through
D-8, inclusive. The Defense marked, introduced, and sought the admission of these Exhibits. The
Undersigned raised the issue of whether the video had been slowed (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 167) and
Detective Fowler explained the video only records every few seconds, and consequently, appears
slowed down. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 168). The Undersigned ultimately did not rely on the video to
determine whether C.P. and B.B. were engaged in normal ambulation or otherwise, instead
relying on C.P.'s testimony for this evidence.
c) The Commonwealth failed to preserve and then produce the alleged Victim's
school "Agenda Book", knowing same to be a critical piece of potentially exculpatory
evidence as to the alleged Victim's departure time from a classroom immediately prior to
the alleged incident, her reasons for leaving, and her truthfulness. Further, knowing of the
existence of said Agenda Bool{, and its import, the Commonwealth failed to take the
necessary precautions to preserve the evidence for trial. Instead, critical pages were
removed from the book, specific to the time in question. UpOIl discovery of the missing
pages by the defense, copies of those pages were obtained, however, they were excluded as
evidence at trial because the "Agenda Bool{" from which they had been torn, had been
returned to the alleged Victim and now has reportedly disappeared entirely.
The Undersigned has no information or knowledge regarding missing pages from C.P.'s
Agenda Book. The Agenda Book was a log students were required to use at Wissahickon High
8
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
School to sign in and out of class. (NT. 10.8.13, p. 73).
A photocopy of pages allegedly from c.P.'s Agenda Book was made available and
marked by the Defense as Exhibit D-I during the adjudication hearing. As noted by the
Commonwealth's attorney during the adjudication hearing, the patties handled a Motion to
Compel prior to trial and reached an agreement regarding all outstanding discovery; the original
Agenda Book was not requested. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 73; Agreed Discovery Order of September II,
2013). B.B.'s counsel requested the Agenda Book for the first time on October 7, 2013 during
the trial. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 186).
The Undersigned determined on the record that this Book had "obvious evidentiary
value", and ordered the Commonwealth to produce it ijC.P. were able to find it at her house, "in
an abundance of caution, to be fair to the juvenile [B.B.]". (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 73, 74). However,
C.P. was unable to find the book. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 183, 186, 187; NT. 10.9.13, p. 96). B.B.'s
counsel indicated that the principal of Wissahickon High School would authenticate the two
pages which were illegible. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 92). The top picture ofa page from c.P.'s Agenda
Book was admitted into evidence. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 180). The bottom two photocopied pages
were illegible. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 92). These bottom pages were not authenticated, nor was their
significance explained by a witness; their admission was not requested. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 180).
The issues regarding depatiure time from the classroom immediately prior to the alleged
incident, c.P.'s reasons for leaving, and her tmthfulness were explained thoroughly through the
questioning of various witnesses during the adjudication.
d) The Commonwealth failed to provide notice to the defense of two (2) other
occasions upon which the alleged Victim made similar accusations against other persons,
which would have negated the imposition of the Rape Shield Act.
9
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
The Undersigned, having no knowledge or information regarding these allegations,
cannot respond to this claim of error. There is no suppOli in the record that the Commonwealth
failed to notify the defense of any other accusations the victim made against other persons.
e) The Commonwealth prevented the Defendant from facing his accuser in Court by
physically restricting the view he had of the alleged Victim during her testimony.
The Undersigned finds that pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a), this contention of error is
waived as no objection was raised before the trial court. The United States Constitution provides
for the right of all accused to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine
them, a right also recognized and protected by the Constitution of this Commonwealth. See U.S.
Const. amend. VI; Atiicle I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; In re N c., 74 AJd 271,
275 (Pa.Super.2013). Prior to the 2003 Amendment of Atiicle I, Section 9, the accused in a
criminal proceeding was afforded the express right to confront a witness "face-to-face."
However, following the 2003 Amendment, the accused now is afforded the right only "to be
confronted with the witnesses against him." The removal of the "face-to-face" provision brought
Section 9 into line with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See
Commonwealth v. Geiger, 944 A,2d 85, n. 5 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 738, 964
A,2d I (2009). Fmiher, the PelIDsylvania Supreme Court, in detailing a United States Supreme
Court holding on this very issue, reinforced that "while the Confrontation Clause Sixth
Amendment reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation, face-to-face confrontation is
neither an absolute nor an indispensable requirement." Commonwealth v. Williams, 2014 WL
241870 (Pa. January 21, 2014). Further, the preference for face-to-face confrontation must give
way to public policy considerations and the necessities of the case. Id.
In criminal and juvenile proceedings, violations of this right have been found when a
10
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
witness is physically present but is uncooperative with his or her testimony and when video
testimony is offered in lieu oflive testimony with the ability to cross-examine. In re N.c., 74
A.3d 271, 275 (Pa.Super.2013).
In the matter sub judice, the pmiies arranged for C.P. to testify in person with a physical
view of defense counsel, but not necessarily ofB.B. Due to her trepidation around B.B., this
arrangement proved to be the best way for C.P. to testify. During the hearing, defense counsel
never objected to his client being unable to physically see C.P., but alelied the Undersigned and
the Commonwealth each time C.P. was out of his own view; she shifted back to face-to-face
view accordingly. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 25, 26, 43). C.P. was physically present, subject to extensive
cross-examination by defense counsel face-to-face, and B.B. was present throughout c.P.'s
testimony with the ability to hear her testify and assist his counsel throughout the examination.
Therefore, B.B. was not deprived of his right to confront under the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions.
f) The Commonwealth thwarted the ability of the defense to effectively investigate
the alleged incident by advising Commonwealth witnesses to not cooperate with defense
investigators and improperly and untruthfully characterizing said investigators as "tricky
and deceitful."
The Undersigned, having no knowledge or infOlmation regarding this claim, finds that
this contention of error, in the absence of factual context, is too vague to be addressed and is
therefore waived for the purposes of appellate review. When the trial cOUli is presented with a
vague or undeveloped claim in a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, the cOUli
may not make an effort to develop it to make it comprehensible. Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778
A.2d 683, 686-687 (Pa.Super.2001). The Trial Court would then act as an advocate for the
11
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
appellant over remaining impartial, intruding on the appellant's right to counsel. Commonwealth
v. Butler, 756 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa.Super.2000). The above statement of enol' contains no reference
to these alleged statements from the Commonwealth, no citation to the record, nor was any such
incident developed in the record, leaving the Undersigned impermissibly forced to develop it.
2. Errors Committed by the Trial Court:
a) The Trial Court erred by improperly allowing the prosecutorial misconduct
detailed above to be committed uncheclDowling, supra; Butler, supra. Further, it is well-
settled in Pennsylvania that a defendant's failure to object to allegedly improper testimony at the
proper stage results in waiver. Commonwealth v. Bauhammers, 960 A.2d 59, 73 (Pa. 2008).
c) The Trial Court erred by regularly failing to rule upon objections posed by
defense counsel, and by instead dil'ecting respective counsel to reach agreement among
themselves.
As above, the Undersigned strove for a just adjudication and the record contains
12
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
objections on both sides resolved by counselor withdrawn. FUl1her, if no timely objection is
made on any evidentiary issue, an issue is not preserved for appeal. Commonwealth v. Hairston,
84 A.3d 657 (Pa 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 512, 359 A.2d 393 (1976).
The COUl1 recessed for counsel to discuss Exhibit D-9, which contained text messages, to
determine if they could reach an agreement on the admissibility of the testimony. The COUl1
requested this discussion occur as Exhibit D-4 (also text messages) unnecessarily delayed the
proceedings. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 140). As with Exhibit D-4, Exhibit D-9 contained multiple texts
which B.B. did not intend to use in questioning of the witness. Counsel acknowledged the
situation with Exhibit D-4 by stating "I've numbered this time, without trying to screw this up
again." (N.T. 19.7.13,p. 177). The COUl1then states "You may agree." (N.T. 1O.7.13,p. 178). If
counsel could not agree, the Court would rule on the objections. Therefore, the Undersigned
respectfully suggests that any claim of error regarding the resolution of objections has been
waived.
d) The Trial Court erred by engaging in an improper ex parte communication in
chambers with the prosecuting attorneys and Commonwealth witnesses, including but not
limited to the lead investigator in the matter, immediately prior to rendering a verdict in
this matter
The Undersigned submits that there was no ex parte communication at any point during
this adjudication, confirmed bya review of the transcript and record, pat1icularly regarding the
fact that the above-mentioned claim of elTor makes no specific reference to the record. The
record does reveal that at the close of the adjudication hearing, when asked if he had any
questions, defense counsel stated that he had none. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 7). The same is true of the
disposition hearing. (N.T. 11.25.13, p. 43, 44). As no objection to any alleged ex parte
13
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
communication was made for the record, any claim of error on this issue is thereby waived for
appellate review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
e) The Trial Court erred in adjudicating the Juvenile delinquent of the enumerated
offenses because the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of establishing the Juvenile's
guilt of such offenses beyond a I'easonable doubt and the evidence presented was
insufficient to prove the Juvenile's guilt of said offenses beyond a reasonable doubt
In a juvenile proceeding, the hearing judge sits as the finder offact, and the weight of the
testimony of the witnesses is within the exclusive province of the fact-finder. In re L.A., 853
A.2d 388, 391 (Pa.Super.2004). A delinquent act is one that constitutes a crime under the laws of
Pennsylvania, with exceptions not applicable to the facts of this case. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. A
claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed
sufficient to sUPPOtt the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged
and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 744 A,2d 745, 751 (Pa.Super.2000). The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has also
instructed in great detail that:
In reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims, we must determine whether the evidence admitted
at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to supp0l1 all the elements of the offense.
Additionally, to sustain a conviction, the facts and circumstances which the Commonwealth must
prover ] must be such that every essential element of the crime is established beyond a
reasonable doubt. Admittedly, guilt must be based on facts and conditions proved, and not on
suspicion or sUlmise. Entirely circumstantial evidence is sufficient so long as the combination of
the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Any doubts regarding a
defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
circumstances. The fact[ -Jfinder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented at
trial.
In re KA.T, Jr., 69 AJd 691 (Pa.Super.2013), appeal denied, 81 AJd 78 (Pa. December
18, 2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 AJd 133, 136 (Pa.Super.20 11) (internal
14
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
citations omitted). The Commonwealth, as the verdict winner in the matter sub judice, is entitled
to a view in the light most favorable to it.
With regard to the charge of rape, to prove its case pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3121(a)(I),
the Commonwealth in the instant action was required to present evidence that B.B. engaged in
sexual intercourse with C.P. "by forcible compulsion." The term "forcible compulsion" within
the purview of the rape statute includes both physical force, as well as psychological duress, but
was not intended by General Assembly to be extended to embrace appeals to the intellect or
morals of the victim. Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, 542 A.2d 1335, 1337 (Pa. 1988).
There was ample evidence during the hearing and in the record to supp0l1 the finding
that B.B. committed this act beyond a reasonable doubt. C.P. testified that while she walked into
the audion freely with B.B., B.B. then pushed her against the stairs, holding her while she
screamed, struggled, and cried, pulled her pants down, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with
her without her consent. She further testified that she went immediately to the school nurse's
office and after a brief period of time, told the nurse what had happened. Additionally, she was
taken to the hospital where her injuries were determined as severe, some of the worst the hospital
doctor on duty and staff had ever seen, and required an epidural (typically used for chiidbiJ1h) so
as to perform an examination. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 43-44; N.T. 10.8.13, p. 9, 13, 14, 17, 19,20,21).
Additional witness testimony established that C.P. always maintained that she had been raped
and that B.B. had been her rapist. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 147). Therefore, there was adequate evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt to support that B.B. raped c.P.
To prove that B.B. committed aggravated indecent assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§3125(a)(2), the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.B.
engaged in penetration of the genitals or anus of the complainant (C.P.) with a part ofthe
15
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
person's body for any purpose other than a good faith medical, hygienic, or law enforcement
procedures by forcible compulsion.
As discussed above, the record is rife with testimony and evidence regarding the severity
of C.P.'s injuries, of which the doctor that examined her at the hospital and other hospital staff
testified were severe and consistent with the type of assault repOlied. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 9,13,14,
17, 19,20,21, 109, 113). C.P. also testified extensively that she felt B.B.'s penis and fingers
penetrate her genitals. (N.T. 10.7.13, p. 45, 46). There was no evidence that this was done with
any of the good faith purposes depicted in the applicable statute. In addition, the doctor who
examined her after this incident testified that her injuries were consistent with the history she
gave the hospital staff. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 109). The Comi therefore found forcible compulsion to
adjudicate B.B. delinquent of aggravated indecent assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the charge of aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2702(a)(I), the
Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.B. attempted to cause
serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Under this
section of the above-referenced statute, aggravated assault does not require proof that serious
bodily injmy was inflicted but only that attempt was made to cause such injury. Commonwealth
v. Elrod, 572 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Super.1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 629, 592 A,2d 1297 (1990).
In the matter sub judice, the Undersigned found that B.B. attempted to cause serious
injury in his rape and assault ofC.P. There is ample evidence in the record and cited in the
analysis of rape and aggravated indecent assault which confinn the Commonwealth proved
aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ultimately, the Undersigned found c.P., a 15 year old ninth grader, to be an "incredibly
16
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
credible" witness, who maintained her composure in the face of extensive cross-examination,
appeared tmthful and honest, and if she thought she had said something differently in the past,
acknowledged it. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 6). The cross-examination was aggressive, with Defense
counsel raising his voice and at times calling C.P. a liar. C.P. appeared anxious and scared but
managed to answer questions promptly and rarely appeared uncertain, confused, or evasive.
While her statements contained some inconsistencies, the inconsistencies did not concem the
rape itself as no evidence was presented which indicated that she stated it was consensual. As
testified to by the hospital staff, c.p.'s injuries were consistent with the history she provided.
The Undersigned believed her testimony based on her credibility. (N.T. 10.9.13, p. 7).
In the event B.B.'s statement raises a weight of the evidence claim, the Undersigned
determines that Appellant's contention is too unfocused and therefore, is waived. As the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania instmcted in Commonwealth v. Seibert, 799 A.2d 54, 62 (Pa.Super.2002),
finding that where the appellant merely claimed that "the verdict of the jury was against the
weight of the evidence," the claim was too vague for meaningful appellate review and was
appropriately dismissed by the trial court. In the instant action, Appellant claims only that the
Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of establishing the Juvenile's guilt of such offenses
beyond a reasonable doubt and thus, it was en'or for the Undersigned to adjudicate him
delinquent. In the absence of specific references to the evidence and record, the Undersigned
treats this claim as waived.
f) The Trial Court erred by preventing the Defendant from facing his accuser in
Court by physically obstructing the view he had of thc alleged victim and the view she had
of him during her testimony, thereby violating the Defendant's constitutional right to
confront his accuser under the 6 th Amcndment of the U.S. Constitution, and the
17
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
corresponding rights afforded by the Pennsylvania Constitution.
As discussed in Section ICe) of this Opinion, no objection was made on this issue before
this Court, and therefore, cannot be raised for the first time on appellate review. Pa.R.A.P.
302(a).
g) The Trial Court improperly advocated for the Commonwealth during the trial,
and was impermissibly biased in favor of the Commonwealth.
In the absence of any factual context, this claim is too vague for the Undersigned to
properly address and is thus, waived. Dowling, supra; Butler, supra; Seibert, supra. This COUli
did not advocate for the Commonwealth, nor was it impermissibly biased in its favor. The Court
conducted a fair proceeding. It should be noted that the Commonwealth filed a Petition to
Transfer Juvenile to Adult COUli which was opposed by B.B. Following a hearing, this Court
agreed with B.B. and denied the Commonwealth's Petition. On September 13,2013, B.B. filed a
Petition to ModifY Conditions of Detention, which this Comi granted in pmi by Order of October
3,2013 by personally making arrangements for B.B. and his counsel to have access to an area of
the Montgomery County Youth Center Administrative Area to prepare his case.
3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
At the outset ofthis claim, the Undersigned notes that in a criminal proceeding, an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on collateral review under the Post-
Conviction Relief Act Statute (PCRA). Commonwealth v. Grant, 8 I 3 A.2d 726 CPa. 2002).
However, as juveniles are not afforded relief under the PCRA statute, an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim may be raised on direct appeal. In re K.A. T., Jr., supra.
a) Defense counsel was ineffective by failing to file a Motion for Recusal of the Trial
Judge and request an evidentiary hearing based upon indications of the prospect of a
18
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
premature judgment and/ol' other irregularities that may have served to deprive the
Defendant of a fair trial
The Undersigned finds this claim of error to be both vague pursuant to Dowling, supra;
But/er, supra, and waived pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) as there was no objection during the
hearing to any prospect of a premature judgment, nor did defense counsel at any time during the
adjudicative hearing file such a Motion for Recusal. Additionally, defense counsel had no basis
upon which to file such a Motion, as the Court never formed a premature judgment or was in any
way prejudiced against Appellant. The Court conducted a fair hearing and decided the case upon
the testimony of witnesses.
b) Defense counsel was ineffective in failing to raise timely and appropriate
objections to the conduct of the prosecuting attorney as set forth above and herein,
including, but not limited to:
i) the failure of the Commonwealth to produce the results of the analysis of
the "Rape Kit";
ii) the failure of the Commonwealth to produce the "Agenda Book";
iii) the failure of the Commonwealth to pl'ovide accurate video
representations at trial;
iv) the improper conduct of the Commonwealth in preventing defense
investigators from interviewing Commonwealth witnesses in an unimpeded fashion.
From a thorough review ofthe record, defense trial counsel did raise objections to the
Agenda Book and requested an adverse inference for the Commonwealth's alleged failure to
produce it, a request that was denied by the Undersigned. Therefore, Appellant CaiIDot now claim
that his counsel during the hearing erred when he did object to these issues. As to the results of
19
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
the "Rape Kit," the Undersigned has no knowledge or information regarding this evidence.
Further, items (iii) and (iv) have already been previously addressed in this opinion.
c) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to fully and adequately investigate the
prior conduct of the alleged Victim in terms of her malting similar allegations against at
least two (2) other individuals in the past
As discussed in detail in Section 1(d) above, the Undersigned has no knowledge or
information regarding these allegations.
d) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce any evidence of Defendant's
mental disahilities and cognitive impairments so as to potentially negate the "intcnt" aspect
of the offenses chargcd
The Undersigned has no knowledge or information regarding this alleged failure.
e) defense counsel was ineffective in engaging in a colloquy with the Defendant
regarding his right to testify in his defense, in light of the Defendant's mental disahilities
and cognitive impairments. This was compounded by the fact that the colloquy was
conducted without the Defendant's parents confirming on the record his understanding of
the consequences of his decision not to testify.
In the instant action, the colloquy conducted by defense counsel reflected an infonned,
knowing, and voluntary decision not to testifY and that it was made by a juvenile who understood
what was happening and the effect of his choice not to testify. (N.T. 10.8.13, p. 155,156). There
was no evidence or testimony that he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or
that his decision not to testifY was made due to an inability to participate in his own defense.
/) defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the conduct of the trial
overall which, as detailed above and herein, deprived the Defendant of his constitutional
20
Circulated 01/20/2015 12:29 PM
right to a fail' and objective trial and a determination by an impartial fact-finder.
As the Undersigned has already discussed the impartiality of his ruling, the fact that the
adjudication hearing was conducted objectively and fairly, and due to the fact that no objection
was made regarding any perceived impartiality on the pmi of the Undersigned, this issue was
waived pursuant to Pa.RAP. 302(a).
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Undersigned respectfully submits that the adjudication of
delinquency and dispositional order should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
R. STEPHEN BARRETT, 1.
Copies sent to the following:
Paul W. TresBrrer, Esquire
Distr ct Attorney' f' e
21