Com. v. Settles, J.

J-S66005-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN SETTLES,
Appellant No. 1080 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of June 4, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0016998-2012
BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2016
Appellant, John Settles, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on June 4, 2014. We affirm.
In 2012, Appellant was arrested and charged with committing a
number of sexual offenses against the child-victim, K.W. In summary,
Appellant was accused of repeatedly raping K.W., beginning when K.W. was
either four or five years old and lasting until K.W. was nine years old.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial in March 2014. At the time, K.W.
was 12 years old. As K.W. testified during the trial, Appellant is her older-
brother’s uncle and she had known Appellant since she was “real little . . .
probably like a baby.” N.T. Trial, 3/11/14, at 36-37. During her early years,
K.W. testified, Appellant acted as if he were her father-figure. Id. at 38.
However, K.W. testified, when she turned four years old, Appellant began to
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S66005-15
rape her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Id. at 39. Although K.W.
did not remember how many times Appellant raped her throughout the
years, she testified that Appellant “raped [her] during each and every year
between [the] age[s of] four or five to age nine.” Id. at 57. Moreover, K.W.
testified that every time Appellant raped her, Appellant told her that he
would kill her if she told anyone what he was doing. Id. at 45-46 and
56-57.
Eventually, K.W. told her cousin about Appellant’s attacks and, in
2012, the authorities acquired information relating to Appellant’s crimes. In
response, on November 29, 2012, Dr. Jennifer Wolford of the Children’s
Hospital of Pittsburgh performed a physical examination of
the-then-11-year-old K.W. Dr. Wolford testified that her examination of
K.W. revealed “a transection of [K.W.’s] hymen at 6:00 [], which is
diagnostic of sexual abuse.” Id. at 165.
On December 7, 2012, Detective Aprill Campbell of the City of
Pittsburgh Police Department’s Special Victims Unit interviewed Appellant
concerning K.W.’s accusations. During this interview, Appellant denied
having any sexual contact with K.W. N.T. Trial, 3/12/14, at 200. Detective
Campbell also asked Appellant why K.W. would invent her allegations
against him if they were not true. Id. at 188. Detective Campbell’s
testimony on this matter, and Appellant’s objection thereto, are at the heart
of this appeal and transpired as follows:
-2-
J-S66005-15
[The Commonwealth]: I would like to go through all of
those details in the report that you authored in this case
from December 7th of 2012.
...
What do you – where does the interview go next; what do
you cover?
[Detective Campbell]: I remember asking him – this is a
question I ask almost every person that I interview for
these types of things, if this was not true what would the
child’s motivation be, why would a child make this up.
[Appellant’s Attorney]: Can we approach, Your Honor?
[Trial Court]: You may.
[Thereupon, the following discussion was held at side bar.]
[Appellant’s Attorney]: I object to this line of questioning.
Even though we have done out-of-court, it is also still
asking for the speculation of the witness.
She has no specific special qualifications to offer an opinion
on that point.
[Trial Court]: Well, while that may be true, if he actually
voiced a motive that he believed she had for this, then I
think that would be relevant.
[Appellant’s Attorney]: Thank you, Your Honor.
[Thereupon, the discussion held at side bar concluded.]
[Trial Court]: Detective, you may resume the witness stand.
[The Commonwealth]: Detective, you were testifying to the
fact that you asked [Appellant] why he thought [K.W.]
might have made this up?
[Detective Campbell]: Correct.
[The Commonwealth]: And what was his response?
-3-
J-S66005-15
[Detective Campbell]: At one point, he said he thought
maybe [K.W.] was jealous of some of the girlfriends that he
did have.
He also said that they hadn’t been spending much time
together. So he thought maybe [K.W.] was doing this so
they could spend more time together, and then another part
of the interview, he said that he thought maybe [K.W.’s
mother] or her mother had put [K.W.] up to it.
[The Commonwealth]: Did you quote anything he said in
reference to [K.W.’s] opinion of him, according to
[Appellant]?
[Detective Campbell]: I have to check.
Yeah, I have quotes that he said that [K.W.] had high
regard for me.
[The Commonwealth]: And that she would sometimes be
jealous of girlfriends?
[Detective Campbell]: Correct.
[The Commonwealth]: Now, you have come up with a
timeline of when the abuse occurred at this point in the
investigation; isn’t that right?
[Detective Campbell]: Correct.
[The Commonwealth]: So was it your understanding that
[Appellant] was stating a nine-year-old or younger was
jealous of his adult female relationships?
[Detective Campbell]: According to him, correct.
[The Commonwealth]: Why did you ask that question?
[Detective Campbell]: I’m sorry, which question?
[The Commonwealth]: Why did you ask the question, why
do you think she made this up?
-4-
J-S66005-15
[Detective Campbell]: First – for several reasons.
Sometimes there is a good reason that the person tells me,
you know, gives me a good reason that a child has made
this up.
Other times, it kind of sort of puts me in the mind frame of
the person. I’m interviewing to see what they are thinking
about the child.
Id. at 185 and 188-191.
Following Detective Campbell’s testimony, the Commonwealth rested.
Appellant then testified on his own behalf and, during Appellant’s testimony,
Appellant testified that he never touched K.W. in a sexual manner. See,
e.g., id. at 238.
At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of two counts
of corruption of minors and one count each of rape of a child, indecent
assault of a person less than 13 years of age, and endangering the welfare
of children.1 On June 4, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve a
term of 205 to 410 months in prison for his rape of a child conviction, with
no further penalty for his remaining convictions.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant now raises one
claim to this Court:
Was it error for the trial court to permit City of Pittsburgh
Police Department Detective Aprill Campbell to testify, over
defense objection, that she had asked Appellant [] to
explain why the 12-year-old complainant would falsely
accuse him of having sexually assaulted her and that he had
responded with speculative assertions regarding the
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301, 3121(c), 3126(a)(7), and 4304(a), respectively.
-5-
J-S66005-15
complainant’s possible rationale for making a false
accusation?
Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some internal capitalization omitted).2
We have explained:
our standard of review for evidentiary rulings is a narrow
one: [w]hen we review a trial court’s ruling on admission of
evidence, we must acknowledge that decisions on
admissibility are within the sound discretion of the trial
court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of
discretion or misapplication of law. In addition, for a ruling
on evidence to constitute reversible error, it must have
been harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. A
party suffers prejudice when the trial court’s error could
have affected the verdict.
Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830, 839 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
“An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is
rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of
judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-
____________________________________________
2
The trial court ordered Appellant to file and serve a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b). Appellant complied and listed the following claim in his
Rule 1925(b) statement:
The trial court erred when it permitted Detective Aprill
Campbell to testify to Appellant’s speculative response,
made in an out-of-court interview, made in response to her
question asking for possible reasons why the complainant
would make a false accusation of rape.
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 11/7/14, at 1 (some internal
capitalization omitted).
-6-
J-S66005-15
will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.” Commonwealth v.
Cameron, 780 A.2d 688, 692 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Moreover, under our Rules of Evidence:
The threshold inquiry with the admission of evidence is
whether the evidence is relevant. Unless otherwise
prohibited by law, all relevant evidence is admissible; all
irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Pa.R.E. 402. The
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence define[] relevant evidence
as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” Pa.R.E. 401.
Commonwealth v. Flamer, 53 A.3d 82, 88 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2012) (some
internal citations omitted).
On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it
allowed Detective Campbell to testify that, during her December 7, 2012
interview with Appellant, “she had asked Appellant [] to explain why [K.W.]
would falsely accuse him of having sexually assaulted her and that he had
responded with speculative assertions regarding [K.W.’s] possible rationale
for making a false accusation.” Appellant’s Brief at 3. Initially, we note that
Appellant leveled a specific objection to Detective Campbell’s testimony at
trial, asserting only that the requested testimony was “speculative.” See
N.T. Trial, 3/12/14, at 188-189. Therefore, on appeal, Appellant has waived
any claim that the trial court erred in admitting Detective Campbell’s
testimony on grounds that the testimony: was unduly prejudicial;
constituted an inadmissible “assessment [of] the credibility of the child
witness;” constituted an inadmissible “declaration . . . that young children do
-7-
J-S66005-15
not falsely assert that they have been sexually abused;” or, constituted
inadmissible hearsay. See Appellant’s Brief at 3-25; Commonwealth v.
Shank, 883 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 2005), quoting Commonwealth v.
Witherspoon, 392 A.2d 1313, 1314 n.4 (Pa. 1978) (“[w]here a specific
objection is interposed, other possible grounds for the objection are
waived”); Pa.R.E. 103 (“[a] party may claim error in a ruling to admit . . .
evidence only: . . . if . . . a party, on the record: (A) makes a timely
objection . . . ; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent
from the context”).
As to whether the trial court erred when it overruled Appellant’s
objection on the grounds of speculation, we note that Appellant leveled his
objection after Detective Campbell testified: “I remember asking [Appellant
during the December 7, 2012 police interview] – this is a question I ask
almost every person that I interview for these types of things, if this was not
true what would the child’s motivation be, why would a child make this up.”
N.T. Trial, 3/12/14, at 188-189. Detective Campbell’s testimony on this
matter was not, however, objectionable on the grounds of speculation.
Indeed, as Detective Campbell testified, Appellant provided an answer to her
question – and Appellant’s answer (even if Appellant speculated when he
provided the answer) was admissible at trial because it constituted a
statement made by an opposing party. Pa.R.E. 803(25)(A).
Stated another way, from the context of the above exchange, it is
evident that Detective Campbell was not asked to speculate upon or offer
-8-
J-S66005-15
her opinion as to why Appellant thought K.W. would falsely accuse him. She
was simply asked to recount Appellant’s response to an inquiry that she
posed to Appellant during Appellant’s interview.
It is true that Detective Campbell’s interview question to Appellant had
a dimension of speculation to it, but the detective was not bound by the
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence during her interview with Appellant. Further,
the answers given by a suspect during police questioning, even if
speculative, may suggest avenues for further investigation, provide a
legitimate explanation for why “a child has made this up,” or place the
detective “in the mind frame of the [defendant].” See N.T. Trial, 3/12/14,
at 191.
Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it overruled
Appellant’s objection to Detective Campbell’s testimony on the grounds of
“speculation.” Appellant’s claim to the contrary fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/12/2016
-9-
J-S66005-15
- 10 -