Commonwealth v. Reyes-Acosta
Docket Number | 469 MDA 2022,J-A09040-23 |
Decision Date | 26 July 2023 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOEL S. REYES-ACOSTA Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 26, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0007777-2019.
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
Joel Reyes-Acosta appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of indecent assault and harassment.[1] We reverse and remand for a new trial based on the Commonwealth's violation of Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
On October 2, 2019, Officer Thomas Wales of the Springettsbury Township Police Department filed a criminal complaint charging Reyes-Acosta based on an incident on September 13 2019. The case proceeded to a jury trial on July 20 and 21, 2021. The trial court recounted the evidence:
Trial Court Opinion, 6/6/22, at 2-4.
The jury found Reyes-Acosta guilty of indecent assault and harassment. On October 26, 2021, the trial court sentenced Reyes-Acosta to serve 2 weeks to 23 months of incarceration concurrent with 12 months of probation and to pay $28,556.82 in restitution. Reyes-Acosta filed a post-sentence motion claiming, inter alia, that the Commonwealth violated Brady by failing to provide until after sentencing a letter from the workers' compensation insurer that paid benefits to M.G. related to this incident. The trial court heard and denied Reyes-Acosta's post-sentence motion after a hearing on February 16, 2022. Reyes-Acosta timely appealed. Reyes-Acosta and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
Reyes-Acosta presents five issues for review:
Reyes-Acosta's first issue is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. His argument is twofold. First, he argues that M.G.'s cheek and pants-covered buttocks are not "sexual or intimate parts" of her body, which the Commonwealth had to prove that Reyes-Acosta touched for the offense of indecent assault. Second, he contends that the testimony of Heinrich and M.G. was so inherently unreliable that it was insufficient to prove either crime.
We employ a well-settled scope and standard of review:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim[,] the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d 474, 478 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000)). Testimony from a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it addresses every element of the crime charged. Id. at 481; see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3106 ().
Section 3126 of the Crimes Code provides that "[a] person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant . . . and the person does so without the complainant's consent." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). "Indecent contact" is "[a]ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3101. The "touching" is not required to involve skin-to-skin contact; it is enough to prove touching through a layer of clothing. Commonwealth v. Ricco, 650 A.2d 1084, 1086 (Pa. Super. 1994). Further, "sexual or other intimate parts" includes any "body part that is personal and private, and which the person ordinarily allows to be touched only by people with whom the person has a close personal relationship, and one which is commonly associated with sexual relations or intimacy." Commonwealth v. Gamby, 283 A.3d 298, 313-14 (Pa. 2022)[2] (footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Capo, 727 A.2d 1126, 1127 (Pa. Super. 1999) ( ).
Here, the evidence was sufficient to convict Reyes-Acosta of indecent assault. M.G. testified that Reyes-Acosta "put [his arms] around [her] waist and his hand on [her] butt and told [her] that he wanted … to eat [her] pussy and eat [her] ass and tried to kiss [her]" on her mouth, getting saliva on her face. N.T., 7/21/21, at 104. The jury was free to believe this testimony, which established that Reyes-Acosta touched M.G.'s sexual or intimate parts. His statement about wanting to "eat" her "pussy" and "ass" supports the inference that he had the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.
Likewise the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses was not so inherently unreliable as to be insufficient to support Reyes-Acosta's guilt. While Reyes-Acosta attacks Heinrich's corroborating testimony based on her forgetfulness, corroboration is not required. Johnson, 180 A.3d at 481; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3106. Although Reyes-Acosta asserts that M.G. had a motive to lie and had not reported the prior incident until ...
To continue reading
Request your trial