Commonwealth v. Largaespada

Citation184 A.3d 1002
Decision Date24 April 2018
Docket NumberNo. 3375 EDA 2016,3375 EDA 2016
Parties COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jose LARGAESPADA, Appellant
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

Zak T. Goldstein, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Grady J. Gervino, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J.

OPINION BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellant, Jose Largaespada, appeals from the July 11, 2014 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of Unlawful Contact With a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of Children, and Corruption of Minors.1 After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. In 2003, then 9–year–old M.L. ("Victim") and her siblings moved from Nicaragua to the United States to live with their father, Appellant, and their paternal grandmother. Appellant began sexually abusing Victim when she was 10 and 11 years old. Appellant would grab Victim, undress her, kiss her body, and put his penis inside her vagina at night while everyone else in the house was sleeping. See N.T. Trial, 4/3/13, at 107–17.

In 2009, after returning home from visiting her Mother in Nicaragua, then 15–year–old Victim informed Appellant, "I don't want to do this anymore." Id. at 118. According to Victim, Appellant became upset, stated he wanted to "do it" with Victim, grabbed her, removed her clothing, pushed her onto the living room sofa, and touched her breasts and vagina. Id. at 119. Victim pushed Appellant off her and ran to the bathroom, where she texted her older brother. Victim told her brother about the history of abuse and current incident of abuse. Id. 120–21.

Victim's brother came home, confronted Appellant about Victim's accusations, and angrily left. Within a week or so, Victim's brother rented an apartment and Victim moved in with her brother. See id. at 121–25. Approximately two weeks later, in September 2009, Victim reported the incidents to police and gave detectives a signed statement. Victim explained that she had not reported Appellant's conduct previously because she was afraid and did not think that anyone would believe her. Id. at 119–20.

In October 2009, police arrested Appellant and charged him with, inter alia , Rape, Incest, and the above-mentioned charges. Prior to trial, Appellant filed a Motion to Pierce the Rape Shield Law in order to introduce evidence that Victim allegedly engaged in an ongoing secretive sexual relationship with her uncle in Nicaragua.2 The trial court held three in camera evidentiary hearings at which Appellant presented:

(1) testimony from Victim's older half-sister, who knew of the relationship between her uncle and Victim, and testified that Victim and their uncle asked her not to tell anyone;3
(2) cell phone records showing frequent contact between Victim and her uncle in the weeks leading up to Victim's reporting of Appellant's abuse to police;
(3) testimony from Appellant's niece regarding sexual contact she had with Victim's uncle in Nicaragua in 1998 when she was 14 years old and the uncle was 37 years old; and
(4) limited, non-substantive testimony from the uncle.

On July 13, 2012, the court denied the Motion after determining that the evidence Appellant wanted to present was not relevant.

At trial, the jury heard testimony from, inter alia , Victim and her brother. Victim's brother testified about an incident where he returned home from a 4th of July party, opened the door, and witnessed Appellant on the living room sofa with Victim on top of him and both were not wearing pants. The brother was shocked and immediately left the house. Appellant told the brother he would never do it again and repeatedly asked the brother not to tell anyone. N.T. Trial, 4/3/13, at 167–171.

Victim's brother also corroborated Victim's testimony and stated that he was at the movies when he received a text message from Victim that Appellant tried to touch her inappropriately. Victim's brother returned to the house to find Victim crying in the bathroom, confronted Appellant, and eventually moved out with Victim. Id. at 172–77.

On April 8, 2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the Welfare of Children, and Corruption of Minors.4 On July 11, 2014, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 6 to 23 months' incarceration followed by 5 years of probation.

Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.5 Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's Motion to Pierce the Rape Shield and prohibiting Appellant from introducing evidence that [Victim] fabricated the sexual assault allegations against Appellant in order to conceal and continue her ongoing sexual relationship with Appellant's brother-in-law, [Victim's uncle]?
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the above-mentioned brother-in-law and potential defense witness [ ] held a Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid questioning for conduct which took place in Nicaragua?
3. Whether the trial court erred in [ ] sustaining the Commonwealth's objection when Appellant's trial counsel asked the minor [Victim]'s brother if he had sued Appellant for child support after [Victim] moved in with her brother?
4. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth's objection when Appellant's trial counsel asked whether [Victim] had posted on Facebook or other social media about drinking alcohol and smoking after moving out of Appellant's house?

Appellant's Brief at 5–6.

Motion to Pierce the Rape Shield

In his first issue, Appellant avers that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's Motion to Pierce the Rape Shield. Id. at 18. Appellant argues that the following evidence was relevant to establish that Victim had a motive to fabricate allegations of sexual abuse against Appellant:

(1) Victim had an on-going sexual and monetary relationship with her uncle;
(2) Victim did not want Appellant to learn about the relationship; and
(3) Victim wanted to leave Appellant's house so that Victim could continue the relationship with her uncle.

Id. at 29. The trial court found that this evidence was not relevant to establish that Victim had a motive to fabricate allegations against Appellant. We agree.

This Court has established that a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of a sexual abuse victim's prior sexual conduct will be reversed only where there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. K.S.F. , 102 A.3d 480, 483 (Pa. Super. 2014). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused." Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

The Rape Shield Law restricts the introduction of evidence of a victim's past sexual conduct and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct shall not be admissible in prosecutions under this chapter except evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent of the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a). The purpose of the Rape Shield Law is "to prevent a trial from shifting its focus from the culpability of the accused toward the virtue and chastity of the victim." Commonwealth v. Burns , 988 A.2d 684, 689 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[t]he Rape Shield Law is intended to exclude irrelevant and abusive inquiries regarding prior sexual conduct of sexual assault complainants." Id.

The Rape Shield Law includes one statutory exception to the general prohibition against evidence of victim's past sexual conduct, namely the admission of evidence of past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent is at issue. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a). In addition, this Court has recognized several other exceptions in an effort "to reconcile the effect of the statute in excluding evidence with the accused's sixth amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination." Commonwealth v. Guy , 454 Pa.Super. 582, 686 A.2d 397, 400 (1996). Established exceptions include evidence that negates directly the act of intercourse with which a defendant is charged, evidence demonstrating a witness' bias, or evidence that attacks credibility. Commonwealth v. Allburn , 721 A.2d 363, 367 (Pa. Super. 1998). Notably, "evidence tending to directly exculpate the accused by showing that the alleged victim is biased and thus has a motive to lie, fabricate, or seek retribution is admissible at trial." Guy , supra at 400.

A defendant wishing to introduce evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct that falls within an exception to the Rape Shield Law must make a specific, written proffer to the court. Id. ; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(b). Once a defendant meets this threshold requirement, the trial judge is required to hold an in camera hearing to determine whether the evidence is relevant, exculpatory, and necessary to the accused's defense. Guy, supra at 400. In other words, the evidence must be "relevant to exculpate the accused, more probative than prejudicial, and non-cumulative in nature." Id. at 401.

Instantly, Appellant filed a Motion to Pierce the Rape Shield Law and the trial court held an in camera hearing. As discussed in greater detail above, Appellant presented evidence of an extensive sexual relationship between Victim and her uncle as well as the fact that the uncle paid Victim's stepsister in order to prevent the stepsister from discussing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Martz
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 28, 2020
    ......Burns , 988 A.2d 684, 689 (Pa.Super. 2009) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[t]he Rape Shield Law is intended to exclude irrelevant and abusive inquiries regarding prior sexual conduct of sexual assault complainants." Id. See also Commonwealth v. Largaespada , 184 A.3d 1002, 1006 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 534, 197 A.3d 223 (2018). "[P]rior sexual conduct with third persons is ordinarily inadmissible to attack the character of the [complainant] in sex offense cases. 1A Wigmore, Evidence § 62 (Tillers rev. 1983)." Commonwealth v. ......
  • Kimble v. Laser Spine Inst., LLC
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 30, 2021
    ...to concerns that the matter is collateral, would likely confuse or mislead the jury, or would waste time. See Commonwealth v. Largaespada , 184 A.3d 1002, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Gen. Equip. Mfrs. v. Westfield Ins. Co. , 430 Pa.Super. 526, 635 A.2d 173, 182 (1993).Here, Appellants were abl......
  • Commonwealth v. Jerdon
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 1, 2019
    ...irrelevant and abusive inquiries regarding prior sexual conduct of sexual assault complainants." Id. See also Commonwealth v. Largaespada , 184 A.3d 1002, 1006 (Pa.Super. 2018), appeal denied , 649 Pa. 534, 197 A.3d 223 (2018)."[P]rior sexual conduct with third persons is ordinarily inadmis......
  • Commonwealth v. Bidwell
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 24, 2021
    ......2020). "When a trial court. determines the scope of cross-examination, it may consider. whether the matter is collateral, the cross-examination would. be likely to confuse or mislead the jury, and the. cross-examination would waste time." Commonwealth v. Largaespada , 184 A.3d 1002, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2018). "As a general rule, evidence of interest or bias on the. part of a witness is admissible and constitutes a proper. subject for cross-examination." Commonwealth v. Birch , 616 A.2d 977, 978 (Pa. 1992). . . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT