Commonwealth v. Sauers
Decision Date | 29 March 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 3123 EDA 2015,3123 EDA 2015 |
Citation | 159 A.3d 1 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Nathan Robert SAUERS, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Bradley W. Weidenbaum, Brodheadsville, for appellant.
Michael T. Rakaczewski, Assistant District Attorney, Stroudsburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, SOLANO, and
OPINION BY SHOGAN, J.:
Nathan Robert Sauers ("Appellant") appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on June 16, 2015, in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm the convictions, vacate in part the judgment of sentence, and remand for re-sentencing.
On August 4, 2013, Monroe County Detective Brian Webbe was using a proprietary police version of the Ares peer-to-peer file-sharing network1 known as Ares Round-up Software ("software") to investigate on-line child pornography. During his search, Detective Webbe identified a computer with an IP address of 50.29.128.171 and a username of "FromK9to5" as containing downloaded child pornography. The detective downloaded ten files from the suspect computer. Armed with a court order, Detective Webbe identified Appellant as the owner of the IP address and username. Upon execution of a search warrant at Appellant's home, Detective Webbe found Appellant's Dell laptop computer. Because no child pornography was immediately discovered on the computer, Detective Webbe used forensic software to examine the computer. He found files indicating that Appellant's computer had recently downloaded the Ares program and that the program had been used to view, download, and share child pornography.
Appellant was charged with ten counts of possession of child pornography, ten counts of dissemination of child pornography, and one count of criminal use of a communications facility.2 Following a more in-depth examination of Appellant's computer, Detective Webbe found an additional eighty-seven files containing child pornography in the unallocated space of Appellant's computer. Consequently, Appellant was charged under a separate docket with eighty-seven counts of possession of child pornography. The cases were joined for trial.
A jury convicted Appellant on all eleven counts on the first docket, and it acquitted him of the eighty-seven counts on the second docket. The trial court sentenced Appellant to incarceration for an aggregate term of sixty to 120 months. Additionally, the trial court designated Appellant as a Tier III sexual offender and directed his compliance with the lifetime reporting requirements of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 –9799.41. Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied. Appellant filed a timely appeal. He and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review:3
Appellant's Brief at 7–8 (renumbered).
Appellant first challenges the admission of the Commonwealth's photographic and video evidence of child pornography. With regard to the admission of evidence:
we give the trial court broad discretion, and we will only reverse a trial court's decision to admit or deny evidence on a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment, but an overriding 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 or the record.
Commonwealth v. Flamer , 53 A.3d 82, 86 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The trial court will be reversed only if an error in the admission of evidence contributed to the verdict. Commonwealth v. Konias , 136 A.3d 1014, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied , 145 A.3d 724 (Pa. 2016).
Admissibility depends on relevance and probative value. 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. Once evidence is found to be relevant, it will be inadmissible only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Commonwealth v. Lilliock , 740 A.2d 237, 244 (Pa. Super. 1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Pa.R.E. 403.
Appellant claims the trial court erred as "gate-keeper" when, prior to publishing the materials to the jury, the trial court viewed three still images and four videos that the Commonwealth intended to introduce but then allowed the Commonwealth to admit all of the videos, and, thereby "exposed the jury to hig[h]ly prejudicial and inflame[m]atory evidence without viewing [it] prior to showing it to the jury." Appellant's Brief at 11 (citing N.T., 3/3/15, at 76–88, 184–202; United States v. Cunningham , 694 F.3d 372 (3rd Cir. 2012) ). Additionally, Appellant argues, admission of ninety-seven images and videos, when Appellant was willing to stipulate to their content, was prejudicial, cumulative, and not harmless error. Id. at 10, 12, 13.
In response, the Commonwealth explains, "[I]n an effort to minimize any potential prejudicial effect, the Commonwealth sought to introduce only a sample of the [challenged] evidence and not the entire ‘collection.’ " Commonwealth's Brief at 9. Moreover, although it was not required to do so, the Commonwealth would have agreed to Appellant's stipulation that the remaining images constituted child pornography, but Appellant refused to stipulate. Consequently, the Commonwealth considered it necessary to show all of the images to sustain its burden. Id. ; N.T., 3/3/15, at 12, 74.
The trial court addressed this issue on the pretrial record as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas, Bucks Cnty., PA, 16-4175
...a sex offender for life based upon the court’s interpretation of SORNA’s requirements.") (emphasis in original); Commonwealth v. Sauers , 159 A.3d 1, 16 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (noting that a challenge to a Tier III SORNA classification is a "non-waivable legality-of-sentence issue," vacating......
-
Commonwealth v. Steven Van Smith S. Rich, 789 MDA 2016.
...failure to raise it in the trial court, either at oral argument or in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Sauers, 159 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2017) (issue waived for failure to preserve it in trial court); Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2015) (issue not advanced i......
-
King v. Superintendent Coal Twp. SCI
... ... Wilford decided to cooperate with the prosecution and King ... did not. Through an agreement with the Commonwealth, Wilford ... pleaded guilty to third-degree murder and other charges ... related to the robberies in exchange for his testimony ... 750, 760-61 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 ... A.3d 749, 770-71 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019); Commonwealth v ... Sauers, 159 A.3d 1, 9-10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017); ... Commonwealth v. Smith, 47 A.3d 862, 865-66 (Pa ... Super. Ct. 2012); Commonwealth v ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Karash
...Appellant did not bear the burden of proving the number of wearable and throwable flotation devices on his boat. See Commonwealth v. Sauers, 159 A.3d 1, 11 (Pa. Super. 2011). As such, Appellant did not waive his sufficiency claim by failing to offer any evidence regarding this fact. See Pa.......