Commonwealth v. Collins

• Decision Date: 24 May 2022
• Docket Number: 3579 EDA 2019,3580 EDA 2019,3581 EDA 2019,3582 EDA 2019,J-S33024-21, No. 3580 EDA 2019, No. 3581 EDA 2019, No. 3582 EDA 2019
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD COLLINS Appellant

Nos. 3579 EDA 2019, 3580 EDA 2019, 3581 EDA 2019, 3582 EDA 2019

No. J-S33024-21

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 24, 2022

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 18, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005248-2018 CP-51-CR-0005249-2018, CP-51-CR-0005250-2018 CP-51-CR-0003884-2019

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM

NICHOLS, J.

Appellant Richard Collins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of strangulation, involuntary servitude, trafficking in individuals, rape, and aggravated assault.^[1] Appellant challenges the trial court's admission of evidence under Pa.R.E. 403 and the amount of restitution. We affirm.

We adopt the trial court's summary of the facts underlying this matter. Trial Ct. Op., 6/8/20, at 2-9. Briefly, Appellant was charged with multiple offenses after he subjected four female victims to involuntary sexual servitude and other crimes during a period of several months. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion in limine to preclude the Commonwealth from presenting certain photos and videos depicting two of the victims, F.S. and S.C., who were either partially or fully nude. N.T. Trial, 8/6/19, at 26, 31-32. Ultimately, the trial court denied Appellant's request to exclude the photos, but ordered the Commonwealth to redact the victims' genitalia and to display the photographs to the jury for no longer than five seconds. Id. at 37-38. The Commonwealth also agreed that, "rather than subjecting the jury to the graphic nature of the videos," it would present a detective who could "describe what [was] taking place on the videos, as well as what [was] being said on the videos . . ." N.T. Trial, 8/7/19, at 3.

On August 9, 2019, the jury found Appellant guilty of the above offenses. On October 18, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of twenty to forty years of imprisonment. The trial court also ordered Appellant to pay $25, 000 in restitution to two victims, F.S. and S.C., who were subjected to involuntary sexual servitude. See N.T. Sentencing Hr'g, 10/18/19, at 28, 31.

Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied on November 1, 2019.^[2] Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal on Monday, December 2, 2019.^[3], ^[4] On March 2, 2020, the trial court ordered Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Although not reflected on the docket, our review of the record confirms that Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement raising multiple issues, including the Commonwealth's use of the explicit photos depicting two of the victims at trial.^[5] Trial Ct. Op. at 2. The trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant's claims.^[6] Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by permitting the Commonwealth, over objection, to introduce in evidence what essentially were pornographic videos and photographs?

2. Did the trial court impose an illegal sentence of restitution when the amount ordered Appellant to pay was based on mere speculation?

Appellant's Brief at 3.

Evidentiary Rulings

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the Commonwealth to introduce and display videos and photos of two victims, F.S. and S.C Id. at 15. In support, Appellant claims that the photos and videos "had no relevance and any probative value they may have had was clearly outweighed by the prejudice they certainly engendered in the jury." Id. Appellant reasons that the "drug use and sex acts depicted in the" exhibits were not relevant to proving "the crimes of human trafficking and involuntary servitude," because the victims were already addicted to drugs. Id. at 19. Likewise, Appellant maintains that the evidence, which "display[ed] some of the victims using drugs and under the influence of drugs and also participating in degrading immoral acts," were highly inflammatory and prejudicial. Id. at 20. Appellant concludes that because the Commonwealth could have relied on other evidence to "establish what it claimed the photographs and videos depicted," the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine. Id. at 20.

In reviewing a challenge to the admissibility of evidence, our standard of review is as follows:

Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not reverse a trial court's decision concerning admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record. If in reaching a conclusion the trial court overrides or misapplies the law, discretion is then abused and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct the error.

Commonwealth v. LeClair, 236 A.3d 71, 78 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). "To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party." Commonwealth v. Bond, 190 A.3d 664, 667 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

An error is not harmful or prejudicial, i.e., is a "harmless error," when the Commonwealth proves:

(1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.

Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764, 787 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).

Relevance is the threshold for admissibility of evidence; evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. Pa.R.E. 402. 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. Our Rules of Evidence provide the test for relevance: evidence is relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Pa.R.E. 401. Further, "the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Pa.R.E. 403.

Commonwealth v. Leap, 222 A.3d 386, 390 (Pa. Super. 2019) (some citations omitted and formatting altered), appeal denied, 233 A.3d 677 (Pa. 2020).

Further, this Court has explained:

Evidence will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful to the defendant. This court has stated that it 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."

Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

The Crimes Code defines the offense of involuntary servitude as follows:

(a) Offense defined.-A person commits a felony of the first degree if the person knowingly, through any of the means described in subsection (b), subjects an individual to labor servitude or sexual servitude, except where the conduct is permissible under Federal or State law other than this chapter.

(b) Means of subjecting an individual to involuntary servitude.-A person may subject an individual to involuntary servitude through any of the following means:

(1) Causing or threatening to cause serious harm to any individual.

(12) Facilitating or controlling the individual's access to a controlled substance.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3012(a)-(b).

Based on our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the trial court's ruling. See LeClair, 236 A.3d at 78. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that the photos were relevant to prove that Appellant committed the offense of involuntary servitude. See Trial Ct. Op. at 14-15. Further, we agree with the trial court that the probative value of the photographs outweighed any prejudice, particularly because the photos were redacted and were displayed to the jury for less than five seconds. See id. at 15; see also Page, 965 A.2d at 1220 (stating that the court is not required to sanitize the trial by eliminating relevant, albeit unpleasant, facts). Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's analysis of this issue. See Trial Ct. Op. at 10-17.^[7]

To the extent Appellant challenges the admission of the videos, he did not raise that issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement. Therefore, this claim is waived.^[8] See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted and formatting altered) (stating that "issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived for review"). Further, as noted previously, the Commonwealth did not play the videos for the jury at...