Commonwealth v. Dula
Citation | 262 A.3d 609 |
Decision Date | 20 September 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 1758 MDA 2019,1758 MDA 2019 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Andrew DULA, III, Appellant |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Albert J. Flora Jr., Wilkes Barre, for appellant.
James L. McMonagle, Wilkes-Barre, for appellee.
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY McCAFFERY, J.:
Andrew Dula, III (Appellant), appeals from the judgment of sentence entered June 14, 2019, in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury convictions of attempted involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), institutional sexual assault,1 and related crimes for his sexual abuse of a mentally and physically disabled woman in his care. Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to strike a juror for cause, and abused its discretion by permitting testimony concerning primitive sounds and non-verbal conduct by the victim, a bruise on the victim, and Appellant's odd work behavior; denying a motion for a mistrial after the arresting officer stated he did not believe Appellant's denial of culpability; refusing to instruct the jury that the victim would not be called to testify because she lacked testimonial competency; and admitting Appellant's inculpatory statement in violation of the corpus delicti rule. For the reasons below, we affirm.
The facts, as developed during Appellant's jury trial, are summarized by the trial court, in its detailed 64-page opinion, as follows:
[The victim, M.H.,] suffers from severe to profound mental retardation
and severe spastic cerebral palsy. Because of these conditions, she is unable to speak, walk unassisted, or otherwise care for herself. [M.H.'s] mother, Donna Siene, provided for [her] needs in their home until [M.H.] reached the age of 21. Knowing that she would eventually be unable to care for her daughter, Mrs. Siene placed [M.H.] in the Community Living Arrangements residence (hereafter "the CLA") in Kingston, Pennsylvania, a residence home for persons with disabilities. During the time frame pertinent here, the CLA housed three residents, including [M.H.], who were cared for by residential program workers, including [Appellant], who was hired to work the 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. overnight shift Sundays through Thursdays.
On February 2, 2016, [Appellant] and his coworker LaShanda Williams were working the overnight shift. When [Appellant] arrived at the CLA that evening, he entered the residents' bathroom and began grooming his hair while singing "I love you [M.] I love you [M.]" Ms. Williams heard [M.H.] start to whine as [Appellant] sang. When Ms. Williams asked [Appellant] what he was singing, [Appellant] told her he was using [M.H.'s] name with the lyrics of an old song.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shauf v. Marsh
......Unconvinced, the jury. convicted the Petitioner on all counts including Second. Degree Murder. . . Commonwealth v. Shauf , No. 1160 MDA 2017, 2018 WL. 4998263, at *3 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 16, 2018); (Doc. 20-7 at. 4-6). . . ... se rule of prejudice from admission of lay witness. credibility testimony. ( See Id. at 57); cf. Commonwealth v. Dula , 262 A.3d 609, 635 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (on direct appeal, rejecting reading of. Commonwealth v. McClure , 144 A.3d 970 (Pa. Super. ......
-
Commonwealth v. Rush
...to overcome any potential prejudice. The law presumes that a jury will follow the trial court's instructions. Commonwealth v. Dula , 262 A.3d 609, 633 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilliam , 249 A.3d 257, 274–75 (Pa. Super. 2021) ); see Pa.R.Crim.P. 605 (allowing a defendant to......
-
Commonwealth v. Rush
...... settled that a mistrial is not necessary where cautionary. instructions are adequate to overcome any potential. prejudice. The law presumes that a jury will follow the trial. court's instructions. . . Commonwealth v. Dula , 262 A.3d 609, 633 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilliam , 249 A.3d. 257, 274-75 (Pa. Super. 2021)); see Pa.R.Crim.P. 605. (allowing a defendant to move for mistrial when an event. prejudicial to the defendant occurs during trial). A mistrial. is not ......
-
Commonwealth v. Washington
...... grant a mistrial only where the incident upon which the. motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable. effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by. preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true. verdict." Commonwealth v. Dula , 262 A.3d 609,. 633 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilliam , 249 A.3d 257, 274 (Pa. Super. 2021) (additional. citation omitted)). . 5 . . As our. Supreme Court reiterated in Commonwealth v. Rega ,. 933 A.3d 997 (Pa. ......