J - S18029 - 19

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

v. MANUEL PAGAN, JR.

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1317 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 11, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP
- 36 - CR - 0001286 - 2017 BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2019 Appellant Manuel Pagan, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his jury trial convictions for two counts each of aggravated indecent assault and indecent assault
. 1 Appellant alleges the trial court erred in making various evidentiary rulings, refusing to find a conflict of interest with trial counsel’s representation of Appellant, and imposing separate sentences for the aggravated indecent assault convictions. W e affirm. We adopt the trial court’s facts and procedural history. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/3/18, at 1
- 5. On July 11, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant

_________________ ____________________ _______
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3125(a)(1), (2); 3126(a)(1), (2).J - S18029 - 19

- 2 -

to an aggregate term of seven to twenty years’ imprisonment. 2 Appellant did not file post
- sen tence motions. On August 10, 2018, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, which Appellant timely filed. Appellant now raises five questio ns for this Court’s review: [1]. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of Appellant’s 2005 crimen falsi convictions outweighed the prejudicial effect arising from the admission of the evidence? [2]. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s objection to an actual conflict of interest created by his filing of a PCRA petition involving representation of Appellant by a member of the Public Defender’s Office in another docket? [3]. Did the trial court er r in denying Appellant’s motion to admit impeachment evidence? [4]. Did the trial court err in determining that testimony from two Commonwealth witnesses to whom the victim spoke after the alleged assault constituted prior consistent statements? [5] . Was Appellant’s sentence an illegal sentence with respect to counts 3 and 4 of the information? Appellant’s Brief at 3
- 4.

_________________ ____________________ _______ 2 I n relevant part, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five to ten years’ imprisonment for aggravated indecent assault “involving forcible digital penetration which occurred downstairs” and a consecutive two to ten years’ imprisonment for aggravated indec ent assault involving the “digital penetration which occurred upstairs without the victim’s consent.” Trial Ct. Op. at 4.J - S18029 - 19

- 3 -

After a review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the trial court’s decision, we adopt and affirm on the basis of the tria l court’s opinion addressing the merits of the issues raised on appeal. 3 See Trial Ct. Op. at 5 - 26. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellant’s 2005 juvenile adjudications were more probative than prejudicial under the circumstances of this case
. See id. at 5 - 9. The court correctly determined that trial counsel from the public defender’s office did not have a conflict of interest due to Appellant’s filing of a Post Conviction Relief Act 4 petition, alleging ineffective assistance from another member of the public defender’s office in an unrelated case. See id. at 9 - 13. The court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to admit DNA evidence suggesting that the victim engaged in prior sexual activity with other males , because the limited impeachment value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect
. See id. at 14 - 18 (discussing 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104)
. The court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the victim’s statements to her mother and friend, which were admissible as evidence of the “prompt complaint” of the sexual assault
. See id. at 22 - 24. Finally, Appellant’s aggravated indecent assault convictions did not merge for sentencing , because Appellant committed multiple criminal acts and the

_________________ ____________________ _______ 3 We do not, however, adopt the trial court’s conclusion that the victim’s statements to her mother and friend were admissible as prior consistent statements to rehabilitate, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 613(c). See Trial Ct. Op. at 19 - 22.
4 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9 546.J - S18029 - 19

- 4 -

charges w ere based on two different subsections of the statute. See id. at 25 - 26. Accordingly, having discerned no abuse of discretion or error of law, we affirm the judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 06/03/2019Octo ber 11, 2018 Re : Manuel Pagan, Jr. Cp Cr No: 1286
- 2017 Superior Cr No: 1286 MDA 2018
Index of Opinion 1. Index of Opinion 2. Opinion Circulated 05/07/2019 12:19 PMC OMMONWEALTH OF PENN S YLVA NIA

PA R. A
. P
. 1 9 2 5 OP INI ON V S
. IN THE C OURT OF C O MM ON PLEA S OF LA NCA S TER C OU

NTY , PENN S YLVA

NIA
.

. ,"' ,1� CRIMINAL i c : '.. " \ � � · /' ! '

. ' · , , />: < · '- �

. '



# ·-:::; ) � ' '< ( >- -: ;: }

. 13 1 7 MDA 2 0 1 8 \� \ � "> 

### < �:\

. <� j } 

## 1:� ' ; �· ?\ CP
- 3 6

- CR
- 0 0 0 1 2 8 6

- 2 0 1 7 ( }. ,, . - c: � ) 

### \� ; �\ c, �� } v, · 

# c " " ) } MA NUEL PAGA

N , JR.

B Y TO TARO , J
. Pre s ently b e fore the Su

p erior C ourt o fP ennsylvani a i s an a pp e al fil e d by Manuel P agan, Jr. ( " App ell ant " ) from the j udgment o f s entenc e imp o s e d on July 1 1 , 2 0 1 8
. F or �he re as ons
state d herein, the a

pp e al should b e deni e d

.

B A C K G R O U N D On April 1 1 , 2 0 1 8 , App ell ant a pp e are d b e fore the c ourt for a j ury tri al on one c ount o f ' ' ra p e by forc ib le c ompul s ion, one c ount o f s exual as s ault, two c ounts o faggravate d inde c ent

as s ault, and two c ounts o finde c ent as s ault. 1 (Note s o fT e stimony, Tri al at 6 8

- 7 0) (hereinafter

"N
. T
. " )

. At tri al , Lauren A ston ( " victim " ) te sti fi e d that on Novemb er 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 , . when she was
eighte en-ye ars - o ld, she and her si ster went to App ell ant' s st udio to drink and hang out. I d

. at 24 7
-4 9
. She had never met App ell ant b e fore that evening . I d

. at 24 9

- 5 0
. The victim, her si ster,
and App ell ant then le ft the st udio and went to App ellant' s re s idenc e . I d

. at 2 5 L When they got to the re s idenc e , all thre e went u p stairs to e at and go to sle ep . (N

. T
. at I I 2 5 4 )

. After the victim laid down to go to sle ep , App ell ant put hi s hands down her p ants and put hi s fingers into her vagina. I d

. at 2 5 4

- 5 5
. The victim, who did not give App ellant c ons ent, le ft the b e dro om and went downstairs to sle ep on the s o fa

. I d

. at 2 5 5
- 5 6
. The next thing the victim



### I I 1 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 l ( a) ( l ) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A
. § 3 1 2 4
. 1 , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 5 ( a) (2 ) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 5 ( a) (l) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 6 ( a) (2 ) , and 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 6 ( a) (l) , re sp e ctive ly .**remembered was**  **waking up**  **with Appellant**  **on top**  **of her,**  **his hands**  **on her**  **chestJ and**  **his penis**  **in**

**her vagina.**  **Id. at**  **257-58. The**  **victim told**  **Appellant to**  **stop and**  **tried to**  **push him**  **off of**  **her, but Appellant**  **did not**  **stop until the**  **victim's sister**  **came downstairs**  **and pulled**  **him off.**  **Id. at**  **258. '**  **The victim**  **stated that**  **she and**  **her sister**  **then left**  **Appellant's house**  **and got**  **into their**  **car, at**  **which time**  **Appellant came**  **outside and**  **tried to**  **get them**  **to stay.**  **(N.T. at**  **258-59). While**  **Appellant was**  **at the**  **car, the**  **victim was**  **crying and**  **talking on**  **the phone**  **with het**  **friend, Tiffany**  **Hatchel ("Hatchel").**  **Id. at**  **259. When**  **they left**  **Appellant's residence,**  **the victim**  **dropped her**  **sister off**  **at their**  **mother's home**  **and drove**  **to Hatchel'**  **s house,**  **where she**  **told H�tchel**  **what had**  **happened. Id.**  **The victim**  **then went**  **home and**  **told her**  **mother, who**  **called poli�e.**  **Id. at**  **259-60. This**  **all happened**  **on the**  **same day**  **as the**  **sexual assault.**  **Id. The**  **victim's sister,**  **Kaitlyn Aston**  **("Kaitl yn** **"), testified**  **that while**  **they were**  **in bed**  **upstairs, she**  **saw Appellant's**  **hand moving**  **towards the**  **victim. (N.T.**  **at 215).**  **L�ter, after**  **the victim**  **went downstairs,**  **Kaitlyn went**  **downstairs to**  **find Appellant**  **on top**  **oftheivictim. Id.**  **at 218.**  **The victim**  **was screaming**  **for help**  **and trying**  **to push**  **Appellant off**  **of her.:**  **Id. Still**  **images from**  **a safety**  **coalition video**  **showed that**  **on November**  **29, 2016,**  **at 4:56**  **I a.m.,**  **Appellant, the**  **victim, and**  **Kaitlyn arrived**  **at Appellant's**  **home by**  **vehicle. (N.T.**  **at 512-**  **15). At**  **6:58 a.m.,**  **Appellant can**  **be seen**  **standing at**  **the driver's**  **side window**  **of the**  **victim's car.**  **Id. at**  **515-16. Images**  **taken at**  **7:23 a.m.**  **and 7:32**  **a.m. show**  **Appellant standingiat**  **the front**  **of the**  **victim's car**  **leaning into**  **the driver's**  **window. Id.**  **at 516-17.**  **The victim's**  **car then**  **left the** 
**scene at**  **around 7:56**  **a.m. Id.**  **at 518-19.**  **Hatchel testified**  **that on**  **November 29,**  **2016, between**  **7:00 a.m.**  **and 8:00**  **a.m., the**  **victim called**  **her on**  **the telephone.**  **(N.T. at**  **341-42). The**  **victim was**  **hysterical. Id.**  **at 342.**  **Later that** 
**2 morning,**  **between 9:00**  **a.m. and**  **9:30 a.m.,**  **the victim**  **arrived at**  **Hatchel's house**  **and told**  **Hatchel**

**that she**  **was asleep**  **on a**  **couch, she**  **awoke, and**  **a male**  **was on**  **top of**  **her. Id.**  **at 343-44.**  **The victim**  **related that**  **she kept**  **telling him**  **"no" and**  **tried to**  **push him**  **off, but**  **the male**  **then "stuck**  **it in**  **her and**  **that was it." Id.**  **at 344.**  **The victim**  **was crying**  **hysterically and**  **freaking out.**  **Id. When**  **Hatchel was**  **asked whether**  **the victim**  **told her what the**  **male put**  **in her**  **vagina, Hatchel**  **responded that**  **the victim**  **said his**  **penis. Id.**  **at 34** **7. When**  **asked whether**  **the victim**  **told her**  **if the**  **male's fingers**  **went inside her vagina,**  **Hatchel replied,**  **"No, ma'am."**  **Id. Renee Aston**  **("Aston"), the**  **victim's mother,**  **testified that during**  **the late morning**  **or early**  **afternoon hours**  **of November**  **29, 2016,**  **the victim**  **came home**  **and began**  **to cry.**  **(N.T. at**  **348-49). The**  **victim then**  **told her**  **mother that a**  **male held her**  **down and**  **raped her.**  **Id. at 349-**  **50. Aston**  **took her daughter**  **to the**  **hospital. Id.**  **at 351.**  **Detective James Mummau**  **of the**  **Lancaster City**  **Bureau of**  **Police testified that**  **he obtained**  **an audio**  **recording of**  **a conversation**  **Appellant had**  **with his**  **mother on**  **April 6,**  **2018, which**  **was marked**  **as Commonwealth**  **Exhibit #31.**  **(N.T. at**  **526-28). The**  **recording was**  **played for**  **the jury,**  **and Appellant**  **was heard admitting**  **that he**  **had sex**  **with the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 533,**  **596. A**  **second conversation**  **was recorded**  **on April**  **10, 2018,**  **marked as**  **Commonwealth Exhibit**  **#32, in**  **which Appellant**  **referred to**  **the victim**  **as a**  **"bitch," stated**  **his DNA**  **was not**  **found in**  **the victim,**  **and police**  **would not**  **be able**  **to prove**  **they had**  **sex. Id.**  **at 534-35,**  **596-97. Appellant**  **also sent**  **Kaitlyn a**  **text message**  **after the**  **incident stating,**  **"O]ust tell**  **her I'm**  **sorry again**  **and I**  **hope she**  **can forgive**  **me, and**  **I hope**  **she's okay."**  **Id. at**  **223-26; Commonwealth**  **Exhibit #8.**  **Appellant testified**  **at trial**  **and admitted**  **that he**  **inserted his**  **hand into**  **the victim's**  **vagina while**  **upstairs in**  **bed. (N.T.**  **at 626-27).**  **The victim then**  **left the**  **bedroom because**  **he was**  **going 3** **to have**  **sex with**  **her sister.**  **Id. at**  **578-79. Approximately**  **20-30 minutes**  **later, Appellant**  **went**

**downstairs to**  **use the**  **bathroom, he**  **encountered the**  **victim, she**  **suggested they**  **have sex,**  **he inserted**  **his fingers**  **into the**  **victim's vagina**  **again, and**  **they had**  **sexual intercourse.**  **Id. at**  **580-81, 627.**  **Appellant stated**  **the victim**  **was flirting**  **with him**  **and she**  **never said**  **no. Id,**  **at 570, 584.**  **After a**  **three-day trial,**  **Appellant was**  **found not**  **guilty of**  **rape and**  **sexual assault,**  **but guilty**  **on two**  **counts of**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault and**  **two counts**  **of indecent**  **assault. (N.** **T. at**  **722-23). A**  **pre-sentence investigation**  **was ordered.**  **Id. at**  **725. On**  **July 11,**  **2018, the**  **court imposed**  **a sentence**  **of 5-10 years**  **incarceration on**  **count three for**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault involving**  **forcible digital**  **penetration which**  **occurred downstairs.**  **(Notes of**  **Testimony, Sentencing**  **at 30)**  **("N.T.S."). The**  **court imposed**  **a consecutive**  **sentence of**  **2-10 years**  **in prison** 
**on count**  **four for**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault involving**  **digital penetration**  **which occurred**  **upstairs without**  **the victim's**  **consent.** 

### Id. **at 30-31.**  **Concurrent sentences**  **were imposed**  **on the**  **two counts**  **of indecent**  **assault, for**  **an aggregate**  **sentence of**  **7-20 years**  **incarceration. Id.**  **On August**  **10, 2018,**  **Appellant filed**  **the instant Notice**  **of Appeal**  **to the**  **Superior Court.**  **On August**  **29, 2018,**  **Appellant filed**  **a Statement**  **of Errors**  **Complained of**  **on Appeal**  **("Statement"), alleging**  **that: (1)**  **the trial**  **court abused**  **its discretion**  **in determining**  **the probative**  **value of**  **Appellant's 2005**  **crimenfalsi convictions**  **outweighed the**  **prejudicial effect;**  **(2) the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying Appellant's**  **objection to**  **an actual**  **conflict of**  **interest created**  **by his**  **filing of**  **a PCRA**  **Petition involving**  **representation of**  **Appellant in**  **another case**  **by another**  **member of**  **the Public**  **Defender's Office;**  **(3) the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying Appellant's**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment evidence**  **on the**  **grounds of**  **the Rape Shield**  **law; (4)**  **the trial**  **court erred**  **in determining**  **that testimony**  **from two**  **Commonwealth witnesses**  **whom the**  **victim spoke to**  **after**
**4 the**  **assault constituted**  **prior consistent**  **statements; and**  **(5) Appellant's**  **sentence Was**  **illegal**

**because counts**  **three and**  **four of** **the Information**  **should have**  **merged for**  **sentencing purposes.** 

**' '**  

### See **Statement. This**  **opinion is**  **written pursuant**  **to Rule**  **1925(a)ofthe Pennsylv�ia**  **Rules of**  **Appellate Procedure.**  **DISCUSSION I.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not abuse**  **its discretion**  **in determining**  **that the**  **probative value**  **of Appellant's**  **2005 crimen**  **falsi convictions**  **outweighed the**  **prejudicial effect.**  **Appellant first**  **asserts the**  **trial court**  **abused its**  **discretion in**  **determining �** **hat the**  **probative value**  **of his**  **2005** 

### crimenfalsi **convictions outweighed**  **the prejudicial**  **effect arising**  **from the**  **admission of** **the evidence.**  

### See **Statement. Prior**  **to trial,**  **the Commonwealth**  **filed a**  **notice seeking**  **to introduce**  **Appellant's prior**  **juvenile delinquency**  **adjudications from**  **2005, for**  **counts of** **receiving stolen property, burglary,**  **and theft**  **by unlawful**  **taking.** 

### See **Commonwealth's Notice**  **oflntent to**  **Introduc� Evidence**  **of** 

### Crimen Falsi **Conviction Where**  **More Than Ten**  **Years Has**  **Elapsed. Appellant**  **filed a**  **motion in**  **response seeking**  **to preclude**  **this testimony.**  

### See **Defendant's Motion**  

### in **Liminel Relevant**  **sections of** **Pennsylvania Rule**  **of Evidence**  **609, Impeachment**  **by Evidence**  **of a**  **Criminal Conviction,**  **read as**  **follows :**  **(a) In**  **General. For**  **the purpose**  **of attacking**  **the credibility**  **of any**  **witness, evidence**  **that the**  **witness has**  **been convicted**  **of a**  **crime, whether**  **by verdict**  **or by**  **plea of**  **guilty or**  

### nolo **contendere, must**  **be admitted**  **if it**  **involved dishonesty**  **or false**  **statement. (b)**  **Limit on**  **Using the**  **Evidence After**  **10 Years.**  **This subdivision**  **(b) applies**  **if more**  **than 10**  **years have**  **passed since**  **the witness's conviction**  **or release**  **from confinement**  **for it,**  **whichever is**  **later. Evidence**  **of the**  **conviction is**  **admissible only**  **if: (1)**  **its probative**  **value substantially**  **outweighs its**  **prejudicial effect; and**  **(2) the**  **proponent gives**  **an adverse**  **party reasonable**  **written notice**  **of the**  **intent to**  **use it**  **so that**  **the party**  **has a**  **fair opportunity**  **to contest**  **its use.**  **5 (d)**  **Juvenile Adjudications.**  **In a**  **criminal case**  **only, evidence**  **of the**  **adjudication of**  **delinquency for**  **an offense under**  **the Juvenile**  **Act, 42**  **Pa.C.S. § §**  **6301 et!seq.**  **, may**  **be used**  **to impeach**  **the credibility**  **of a**  **witness if** 

**conviction of** 

**the offense,**  **would be**  **admissible to**  **attack the**  **credibility of** **an adult.**  **Pa.R.E. 609.**  **During a**  **pre-trial hearing,**  **the Commonwealth**  **stipulated that**  **Appellant was**  **released from**  **confinement on**  **these offenses**  **more than**  **ten years**  **before the**  **start of**  **trial. (N.T.** **at 9).**  **2 However,**  **the Commonwealth**  **asserted that**  **the crimenfalsi**  **adjudications wouldlbe**  **extremely probative**  **if Appellant**  **elected to**  **testify at**  **trial, because**  **the case**  **would "boil**  **down to**  **his word** 
**versus the**  **victim's word** **.... " Id.**  **at 9-10.**  **The Commonwealth**  **further argued**  **that because**  **the I**  **prior adjudications**  **were not**  **sexually-related offenses,**  **they would**  **not in**  **any way**  **suggest to**  **the jury**  **that Appellant**  **had a**  **propensity to**  **commit crimes**  **of violence**  **or sexual**  **assaults. Id.**  **at 10.**  **As such,**  **there would**  **be very**  **little prejudicial**  **effect. Id.**  **Appellant argued**  **in reply**  **that there**  **was no**  **probative value**  **to the**  **adjudications because**  **they occurred**  **more than**  **ten years**  **ago, when**  **he was**  **under the**  **age of**  **18. (N.T.**  **� t**  **11). Counsel**  **further believed**  **this would**  **severely prejudice**  **Appellant ifhe**  **would testify,**  **ever though**  **counsel agreed**  **credibility would**  **be at**  **issue. Id.**  **Moreover, counsel**  **argued that**  **the prejudicial**  **effect of**  **this testimony**  **would outweigh**  **any probative**  **value. Id.** 

**2 In**  **their Notice,**  **the Commonwealth**  **also sought**  **to introduce**  **juvenile adjudi6ations**  **from February**  **11, 2008,**  **for the**  **offenses of**  **unsworn falsification**  **to authorities**  **and false**  **identification to**  **law enforcement authorities.**  **See Commonwealth's**  **Notice oflntent to**  **Introduce Evidenc�**  **of Crimen**  **Falsi Conviction**  **Where More**  **Than Ten**  **Years Has**  **Elapsed. The**  **sentences were**  **imposed on**  **March 3,**  **2008, at**  **which time**  **Appellant was**  **placed in**  **commitment for**  **a period**  **of six**  **months. Id.**  **Because Appellant**  **was released**  **from the**  **secure facility**  **within ten**  **years of** **the date**  **of trial,**  **the court**  **ruled that**  **these adjudications**  **were automatically**  **admissible pursuant**  **to Pa.R.E.**  **609. (N.T.**  **at 7-8).**  **Appellant has**  **not challenged**  **the admissibility**  **of these**  **juvenile adjudications**  **on appeal.**  

### 6**In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Randall,**  **528 A.2d**  **1326 (Pa.**  **1987), the**  **Supreme Court**  **identified I**  **five factors**  **the court**  **shall consider**  **in determining**  **whether the**  **value of**  **admittin$** 

### crimen**falsi convictions**  **more than**  **ten years**  **old substantially**  **outweighs its**  **prejudicial effect.**  

### Id. **at 1328-29.**  **Those factors**  **are: (1)**  **the degree**  **to which**  **the commission**  **of the**  **prior offense**  **reflects upon**  **the I**  **veracity of**  **the defendant-witness;**  **(2) the**  **likelihood, in**  **view of**  **the nature**  **and extent**  **of the**  **prior record, that**  **it would**  **have a**  **greater tendency**  **to smear**  **the character**  **of the**  **defendant and**  **suggest**
**a propensity**  **to commit**  **the crime**  **for which**  **he stands**  **charged, rather**  **than provide**  **a legitimate** 
**reason for**  **discrediting him**  **as an**  **untruthful person;**  **(3) the**  **age and**  **circumstance� of**  **the**

**I defendant;**  **(4) the**  **strength of**  **the prosecution's**  **case and**  **the prosecution's**  **need td**  **resort to**  **this evidence**  **as compared**  **with the**  **availability to**  **the defense**  **of other**  **witnesses throhgh**  **which its**  **version of**  **the events**  **surrounding the**  **incident can**  **be presented;**  **and (5)**  **the existence**  **of alternative**  **means of attacking**  **the defendant's**  **credibility.** 

### Id. **at 1328**  **( quoting**  

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Roots, **393 A.2d**  **364, 367**  **(Pa. 1978).**  **In** 

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Rivera, **983 A.2d**  **1211 (Pa.**  **2009), the**  **appellant, wμo**  **was twenty**  **six years**  **of age**  **at the**  **time of**  **his murder**  **trial, had**  **prior juvenile**  **adjudications for**  **robbery and**  **theft which**  **occurred thirteen**  **years prior**  **to trial,**  **when the**  **appellant was**  **only th** **, rteen**  **years old.**  

### Id. **at 1217-18.**  **The appellant**  **contended the**  **trial court**  **abused its**  **discretion by**  **denying his**  **I motion**  

### in **limine which**  **requested the**  **exclusion of**  **evidence of**  **his five**  **juvenile �** **djudications that**  **occurred more**  **than ten**  **years prior**  **to his**  **trial.** 

### Id. **at 1226.**  **After considering**  **the factors**  **identified in**  

### Randall, **supra, the**  **Supreme Court**  **disagreed, concluding**  **the trial**  **court acted**  **within its**  **discretion in**  **determining that**  **appellant's prior**  **juvenile adjudications**  **were more**  **probative than**  **prejudicial.** 

### Id. **at 1228.** 
**7 As**  **noted in**  

### Rivera, **the previous**  **adjudications of**  

### crimen**falsi offenses**  **were relevant**  **to**

**the jury's**  **determination of**  **the appellant's**  **credibility, which**  **was the**  **crux of**  **the case.**  **983 A.2d**  **at 1228.**  **The appellant's**  **juvenile adjudications**  **for theft**  **offenses did**  **not suggest**  **a propensity**  **to commit**  **murder.** 

### Id. **at 1229.**  **Additionally, "[w]hile**  **the age**  **of Appellant**  **at the**  **time the**  **offenses**
**were committed**  **may militate**  **against admission**  **of the**  **evidence, the**  **remaining factors,**  **namely the**  **prosecution's need**  **to resort**  **to this**  **evidence and**  **the lack**  **of alternative**  **means of**  **attacking Appellant's**  **credibility, clearly**  **favor admission."**  

### Id. **In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Hoover,**  **107 A.3d**  **723 (Pa.**  **2014), the**  **defendant filed a**  **motion** 

### in **limine seeking**  **to preclude**  **the Commonwealth**  **from impeaching**  **him with**  **evidence of**  **his fourteen-year**  **old** 

### crimen**falsi conviction,**  **which occurred**  **when he**  **was twenty-two**  **years of**  **age.** 

### Id. **at 725.**  **After balancing**  **the** 

### Randall **factors, the**  **trial court**  **denied the**  **motion.** 

### Id. **at 725-26.**  **On appeal,**  **the Superior**  **Court vacated**  **the judgment**  **of sentence**  **and remanded**  **for a**  **new trial**  **after finding**  **that the**  **commission of**  **a** 

### crimenfalsi **crime at**  **the age**  **of twenty-two**  **could not**  **be held**  **against the**  **defendant.** 

### Id. **at 727.**  **The Supreme**  **Court disagreed,**  **holding that**  **the Superior**  **Court "paid insufficient**  **deference to**  **the discretionary**  **decision of**  **the trial**  **court, and**  **is not**  **otherwise supported**  **by Pennsylvania**  **law."** 

### Id. **at 729.**  **The Supreme**  **Court then**  **rejected any**  **attempt to**  **discount a**  **prior conviction**  **for impeachment**  **purposes based**  **on the**  **youth of**  **the defendant**  **by stating,**  **"there is**  **no support**  **in Pennsylvania**  **law for**  **the proposition**  **that the**  **probative value of**  **a young**  **adult offender's**  **conviction 'is**  **small."'** 

### Id. **at 732.**  **In the**  **present case,**  **the trial**  **court conducted**  **an analysis**  **pursuant to·**  **the factors**  **identified in**  

### Randall **and determined**  **that the**  **prior adjudications**  **would reflect**  **upon the**  **veracity of**  **Appellant to**  **a substantial**  **degree, they**  **were less**  **likely to**  **smear Appellant's character**  **or suggest**  **8 a**  **propensity to**  **commit the**  **crimes for**  **which he**  **stood charged**  **because the**  **prior adjudications** 

**were not**  **related to**  **the charges**  **presently before**  **the court,**  **the Commonwealth**  **clearly articulated**  **the importance**  **of introducing**  **these** 

### crimen**falsi adjudications**  **because the**  **case would**  **boil down**  **to the**  **credibility of**  **witnesses, and**  **the Commonwealth**  **noted there**  **was no**  **alternative means**  **of i**  **attacking Appellant's**  **credibility. (N.T.**  **at 9-16).**  **The court**  **also noted**  **the similarities**  **between the**  **present case**  **and** 

### Rivera, **supra. Id.**  **at 15-16.**  **In both**  **cases, the**  **juvenile adjudications**  **occurred thirteen**  **years prior**  **to the**  **date of**  **trial, they**  **were relevant**  **to the**  **jury's determination**  **of credibility,**  **and they**  **did not**  **suggest a**  **propensity to**  **commit a**  **crime of**  **violence.** 

### Id. **Consistent with**  **the holdings**  **in** 

### Randall, Rivera, **and** 

### Hoover, **the trial**  **court properly**  **I concluded**  **that the**  **Commonwealth did**  **establish probative**  **value to**  **the admissibility**  **of Appellant's**  

### crimen**falsi juvenile**  **adjudications. (N.** **T. at**  **16). Furthermore,**  **the probative value**  **substantially outweighed any**  **prejudice.** 

### Id. **Therefore, the**  **court properly**  **ruled that**  **the prior**  **I adjudications**  **would be**  **admissible if**  **Appellant elected**  **to testify**  **at trial**  **I II.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not err**  **in denying**  **Appellant's assertion**  **that there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest in**  **his representation**  **at trial**  **by a**  **public defender,**  **where the**  **assertion was**  **not timely**  **made and**  **the PCRA**  **he had**  **previously filed**  **involved representation**  **by another**  **member of**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **in an**  **unrelated case.**  **Appellant essentially**  **argues the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying his**  **assertion :**  **that there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest in**  **his continued**  **representation at**  **trial by**  **a public**  **defender, because**  **he had** 

**. I**  **previously filed**  **a PCRA**  **petition involving**  **representation by**  **another member**  **of the**  **public defender's**  **office in**  **an earlier,**  **unrelated case.**  

### See **Statement. After**  **the jury**  **had been**  **empaneled and**  **the court**  **adjourned for**  **lunch, Appellant**  **made a**  **request for**  **a trial**  **continuance so**  **he could**  **hire private**  **counsel. (N.T.**  **at 100,**  **105-06). When**  **it**

**9 was**  **pointed out**  **that he**  **had over**  **one year**  **to obtain**  **private counsel,**  **Appellant responded**  **that he** 

**was only now**  **able to**  **afford private counsel, and**  **private counsel**  **would need**  **more time to prepare**  **for trial.**  **Id. at**  **105, 117.**  **In making**  **this request,**  **Appellant expressed**  **dissatisfaction with**  **current trial**  **counsel by**  **claiming that**  **counsel had**  **withheld exculpatory**  **discovery evidence**  **until just**  **recently, she**  **did not**  **meet with**  **him prior**  **to trial,**  **she did**  **not discuss**  **strategy with**  **him, and**  **she was**  **not prepared**  **to proceed.**  **Id. at**  **106-07. In**  **response, counsel**  **noted that**  **she entered**  **her appearance**  **approximately one**  **year prior**  **to trial,**  **and she**  **has represented**  **Appellant continuously since**  **then. (N.T.**  **at 111).**  **Counsel has**  **been speaking**  **with the**  **prosecutor for**  **several months**  **about the**  **case, she**  **has spoken**  **to Appellant**  **about the**  **case, she**  **reviewed discovery**  **with him,**  **she filed**  **motions on**  **Appellant's behalf,**  **and she**  **was fμlly prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial.**  **Id. at**  **109-12. Moreover,**  **Appellant was**  **just transported**  **to Lancaster**  **County Prison ("LCP")**  **from state**  **prison on**  **April 5,**  **2018, where he** 
**was incarcerated**  **over the**  **past seven months**  **on an**  **unrelated felony**  **drug conviction,**  **and counsel**  **made special**  **arrangements to**  **meet with**  **Appellant the**  **same day**  **he was**  **returned to**  **LCP. Id.**  **at 109,**  **127-28. Furthermore,**  **although it**  **is against**  **office policy**  **in sex**  **offense cases, counsel**  **gave Appellant**  **a copy**  **of the**  **discovery. Id.**  **at 1**  **10. The**  **Commonwealth objected**  **to a**  **continuance. (N.T.**  **at 116).**  **According to**  **the prosecutor,**  **eighteen witnesses**  **had already**  **been subpoenaed**  **and three**  **of those**  **witnesses were**  **traveling considerable**  **distances from**  **out of**  **town. Id.**  **The Commonwealth**  **was prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial.**  **Id. In**  **denying Appellant's**  **request for**  **a continuance,**  **the court**  **noted that**  **the offenses**  **occurred on**  **November 29,**  **2016, the**  **complaint was**  **filed on**  **February 17,**  **2017, the**  **case was**  **10 previously**  **continued by**  **Appellant on**  **at least**  **three occasions**  **over the**  **past year,**  **Appellant had** 

**more than**  **one year**  **to retain**  **private counsel,**  **both counsel**  **were prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial,**  **and a**  **jury had**  **already been**  **empaneled. (N.T.**  **at 118-20).**  **3 After**  **the continuance**  **request was**  **denied, Appellant**  **stated there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest because**  **he and**  **counsel disagreed**  **on how**  **to proceed.**  **(N.T. at**  **120). Appellant**  **also claimed**  **that counsel**  **told him**  **not to**  **provide the**  **names of**  **any witnesses**  **because it**  **was not**  **n�cessary. Id.**  **In response,**  **counsel stated**  **an individual**  **contacted her**  **office just**  **yesterday claiming**  **he was**  **in Appellant's residence**  **on the**  **day in**  **question, and**  **he was**  **the one**  **who had**  **sexual relations with the**  **complainant. Id.**  **at 122.**  **However, the**  **Commonwealth noted**  **that testimony**  **i from**  **this witness**  **would be**  **refuted by**  **a recorded**  **telephone call**  **in which**  **Appellant is**  **heard stating**  **he was**  **home alone**  **with the**  **victim and**  **her sister**  **at the**  **time of**  **this incident.**  **Id. at**  **123-25. The**  **trial court**  **dismissed Appellant's**  **complaint and**  **asked whether**  **there:was anything**  **I else**  **to address,**  **at which**  **time Appellant**  **stated he**  **had already**  **filed a**  **PCRA. (N.T.**  **at 125).**  **When it**  **was pointed**  **out that**  **he had**  **not yet**  **been convicted**  **on these**  **charges, Appellant**  **stated it** 
**was for**  **his prior**  **felony drug**  **conviction. Id.**  **at 125-26.**  **According to**  **Appellant; he**  **filed a** 

**' PCRA**  **in that**  **case alleging**  **ineffective assistance**  **of Courtney**  **Monson, another**  **�ttomey in**  **the**

**3 The**  **grant or**  **denial of**  **a motion**  **for a**  **continuance is**  **within the**  **sound discretion**  **of the**  **trial court**  **and will**  **not be**  **reversed absent**  **an abuse**  **of discretion.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Brooks, 104**  **A. 3d**  **466, 469**  **(Pa. 2014).**  **In Brooks,**  **the Pennsylvania**  **Supreme Court**  **held that**  **the trial**  **court di!i**  **not abuse**  **its discretion**  **in denying**  **a continuance request**  **by a**  **defendant on**  **the day**  **of jury**  **selection: so**  **the defendant**  **could proceed**  **pro se.**  **Id. at**  **467. Moreover,**  **in Commonwealth**  **v. Harding,**  **369 A.2d**  **429 (Pa.**  **Super. 1976),**  **the trial**  **court properly denied**  **a defendant's**  **motion for**  **a continuance**  **so he**  **could obtain**  **private counsel**  **to replace**  **appointed counsel**  **where the**  **defendant was**  **not tried**  **until 11**  **months after**  **his arrest**  **and the**  **motion was**  **not made**  **until a**  **few days**  **before his**  **trial. Id.**  **at 430.**  **In Commonwealth**  **v. Randolph,**  **873 A.2d**  **1277 (Pa.**  **2005), the**  **trial court**  **acted within**  **its discretion**  **in a**  **capital-murder trial**  **in denying**  **a defendant's**  **request for**  **a continuance**  **to enable**  **private counsel**  **to represent**  **pim since**  **the case**  **had already**  **been continued**  **twice on**  **the defendant**  **and the**  **defendant waited**  **until two**  **!business days**  **before trial**  **was scheduled**  **to begin**  **to apprise**  **the trial**  **court of**  **his desire**  **for private**  **counsel. Id.**  **at 1282.**  **11 public**  **defender's office.**  

### Id. **As such,**  **Appellant stated,**  **"[i]t creates**  **conflict of**  **interest."** 

### Id. **at**

**126. The**  **court disagreed,**  **noting the**  **two cases**  **were unrelated.** 

### Id. **In his**  **Statement, Appellant**  **asserts the**  **court erred**  **in denying**  **his "objection"**  **to an**  **actual conflict**  **of interest.**  

### See **Statement. However, Appellant never**  **made a**  **specific objection to**  **the continued**  **representation of**  **trial counsel.**  **(N.T. at**  **125-26). Rather,**  **he suggested**  **there was**  **a conflict**  **of interest**  **only after**  **the jury**  **was empaneled.**  

### Id. **at 100,**  **126. Moreover,**  **trial counsel** 
**never objected**  **to continued**  **representation of**  **Appellant at**  **trial, nor**  **suggest there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest.** 

### See, **Transcript, generally.**  **Because Appellant**  **never lodged**  **a specific**  **objection, and**  **he exercised**  **unreasonable delay**  **in raising**  **this issue, the**  **matter should**  **be deemed waived.**  

### See **Commonwealth v.**  

### Tucker, **143 A.3d**  **955, 961**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2016) (failure**  **to make**  **timely and specific objection**  **at appropriate**  **stage of**  **the proceedings**  **will result**  **in waiver**  **of the**  **issue). Assuming,**  

### arguendo, **the issue**  **is not**  **waived, there**  **was no**  **conflict of**  **interest because**  **trial counsel**  **represented Appellant in**  **a case**  **that was**  **completely unrelated**  **to a**  **separate case**  **in which**  **Appellant alleged that**  **another public**  **defender provided**  **ineffective assistance**  **of counsel.**  **Rule 1.** **7 of**  **the Pennsylvania**  **Rules of**  **Professional Conduct**  **states that**  **a lawyer**  **shall not**  **represent a**  **client if**  **the representation**  **of one**  **client will**  **be directly**  **adverse to**  **another client, or**  **if there**  **is a**  **significant risk**  **that the**  **representation of**  **one or**  **more clients**  **will be**  **materially limited**  **by the**  **lawyer's responsibility**  **to another**  **client, a**  **former client**  **or a**  **third person,**  **or by**  **a personal**  **interest of**  **the lawyer.**  

### Id. **As such,**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **may not**  **represent co-defendants.**  

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Westbrook, **400 A.2d**  **160, 162-63**  **(Pa. 1979).**  **Moreover, a**  **post-conviction petitioner**  **who has**  **claimed ineffective**  **assistance of**  **the public**  **defender who**  **served as**  **trial or**  **appellate counsel**  **may not**  **be represented**  **in such**  **a post**  **12 conviction**  **proceeding by**  **the public**  **defender's office.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Patrick, 383**  **A.2d 935,** 

**936 (Pa.**  **1978). The**  **law will not_ assume that**  **counsel has**  **advised his**  **client of**  **his inadequacies** 
**or those**  **of his**  **associates. Commonwealth**  **v. Via,**  **316 A.2d**  **895, 898**  **(Pa. 1974).**  **However, a**  **lawyer associated**  **in a**  **firm is**  **not prohibited**  **from representing**  **a client**  **whom**
**an associate**  **is prohibited**  **from representing**  **where the**  **prohibition is**  **based on**  **a personal**  **interest of**  **the prohibited**  **lawyer and**  **does not**  **present a**  **significant risk**  **of materially**  **limiting the**  **representation of**  **the client**  **by the remaining**  **lawyers in**  **the firm.**  **See Pennsylvania**  **Rule of**  **Professional Conduct**  **(1.10). In**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Sawyer, 454**  **A.2d I**  **088 (Pa.**  **Super. 1982),**  **the appellant**  **likewise alleged**  **it was**  **a conflict**  **of interest**  **for the**  **public defender's**  **office to**  **represent him**  **at trial,** 

**where he**  **was previously**  **represented by**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **on an**  **unrelated charge**  **in which**  **the appellant**  **subsequently alleged**  **ineffective assistance**  **of counsel**  **on appeal,**  **and that**  **appeal was**  **pending at**  **the time**  **of the**  **instant trial.**  **Id. at**  **I 091.**  **The Superior**  **Court disagreed,** **finding there**  **was no**  **actual conflict**  **of interest.**  **Id. Thus,**  **although the**  **public defender**  **who represented**  **Appellant in**  **the prior**  **criminal case**  **would be**  **_prohibited from**  **representing Appellant on**  **the present**  **charges because**  **Appellant was**  **alleging in**  **a post-conviction**  **proceeding that**  **former counsel**  **was ineffective,** **the personal**  **interest of**  **the prohibited**  **lawyer in**  **that case**  **did not**  **present a**  **significant risk**  **of materially**  **limiting the**  **representation of**  **Appellant by**  **the remaining**  **lawyers of**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **in this**  **completely unrelated**  **case. Therefore, Appellant's assertion**  **in this**  **regard is**  **without merit.** **4**

**4 It**  **should be**  **noted that**  **trial counsel**  **was extremely**  **vigorous in**  **representing Appellant.**  **Counsel f**  **i led**  **pretrial motions**  **seeking to**  **pierce the**  **Rape Shield**  **Law and**  **preclude admission**  **of Appellant**  **' s**  **prior crimenfalsi**  **adjudications. Counsel**  **also forcefully**  **advocated on**  **Appellant's behalf**  **during the**  **trial. To**  **that end,**  **counsel obtained**  **acquittals on**  **the two**  **most serious charges**  **of rape**  **and sexual**  **assault. 13** **III. The**  **trial court**  **did not**  **err in**  **denying Appellant's**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment** 

**evidence on**  **the grounds**  **of the**  **rape shield**  **law. Appellant**  **claims the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying his**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment**  **evidence on**  **the grounds**  **of the**  **Rape Shield**  **law. See**  **Statement. 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104, Evidence**  **of victim's**  **sexual conduct,**  **provides: (a)**  **General rule.-Evidence**  **of specific**  **instances of**  **the alleged**  **victim's pa�t**  **sexual conduct,**  **opinion evidence**  **of the**  **alleged victim's**  **past sexual**  **conduct, and**  **rJputation evidence**  **of the**  **alleged victim's**  **past sexual**  **conduct shall**  **not be**  **admi_�sible 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.**  **(b) Evidentiary**  **proceedings.-A defendant**  **who proposes**  **to offer**  **evidence of**  **the alleged**  **victim's past**  **sexual conduct**  **pursuant to**  **subsection (a)**  **shall file**  **a written**  **motion and**  **offer of**  **proof at**  **the time**  **of trial.**  **If, at**  **the time**  **of trial,**  **the court**  **determines that**  **the motion**  **and offer**  **of proof**  **are sufficient**  **on their**  **faces, the**  **court shall**  **order an**  **in camera**  **hearing and**  **shall make**  **findings on**  **the record**  **as to**  **the relevance**  **and admissibility**  **of the**  **proposed evidence**  **pursuant to**  **the standards**  **set forth**  **in subsection**  **(a). 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104. Prior**  **to trial,**  **Appellant timely**  **filed a**  **motion seeking**  **to admit**  **DNA evid** **� nce**  **which would**  **show that**  **there were**  **three DNA**  **profiles of**  **at least**  **three individuals**  **on thJ**  **sperm fraction**  **from the**  **crotch area**  **of the**  **victim's underwear**  **who did**  **not match**  **the DNA**  **profile of**  **Appellant. See**  **Defendant's Motion**  **to Admit**  **Evidence Related**  **to 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104. According**  **to Appellant,**  **this would be**  **offered to "establish**  **the consensual**  **nature of**  **this encounter**  **and to**  **negate the**  **element of**  **forced penetration**  **regarding the**  **rape charge."**  **Id.; (N.T.**  **at 18-19).**  **The Commonwealth**  **filed a**  **motion seeking**  **to preclude**  **any reference**  **by Appellant**  **to the**  **victim's sexual**  **activity with**  **other individuals,**  **because introduction**  **of such**  **evidence would**  **be presented**  **merely to**  **sully the**  **reputation and**  **chastity of**  **the victim.**  **See Motion**  **in Limine.** 
**14 During**  **a pre-trial**  **hearing, Appellant**  **argued this**  **evidence was**  **also relevant**  **because it** 

**would go**  **to the**  **credibility of**  **the victim. (N.T.**  **at 19).**  **Appellant then**  **sought to**  **submit an**  **ex parte**  **motion which**  **would call**  **into question**  **the veracity**  **of the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 20.**  **5 According to**  **the motion,**  **the victim**  **responded to**  **a Forensic**  **Services Sexual**  **Assault Information**  **Sheet on**  **December 3,**  **2016, stating**  **she had**  **not had**  **intercourse within**  **two weeks**  **of the**  **alleged assault.**  

### See **Defendant's Ex**  **Parte Motion**  **to Admit**  **Impeachment Evidence.**  **After the**  **DNA results**  **revealed unidentified**  **male DNA**  **profiles, the**  **victim indicated**  **that approximately**  **two weeks**  **prior to**  **the alleged**  **rape she**  **was in**  **New York**  **City and**  **had engaged**  **in sexual**  **intercourse. Id.**  **Appellant claimed**  **this response**  **was "in**  **total contradiction"**  **to the**  **previous answer**  **the victim**  **gave on**  **the sexual**  **assault information**  **sheet, and**  **it should**  **be admissible**  **to impeach**  **the victim**  **and her**  **credibility. Id.**  **In response,**  **the prosecutor stated**  **that the**  **DNA analyst**  **would acknowledge**  **Appellant's DNA**  **profile was**  **not found**  **in the**  **vaginal swabs,**  **which itself**  **could negate**  **the vi** **f tim's**  **assertion that**  **Appellant had**  **sexual contact.**  **(N.T. at**  **36). 6**  **Furthermore, sexual**  **relations with**  **another person**  **had no**  **bearing on**  **the victim's**  **credibility, or**  **whether she**  **was raped**  **by Appellant.**  **Id. at**  **37. Additionally,**  **Appellant was**  **recorded the**  **weekend before**  **trial admitting**  **to h.is**  **mother that**  **he did**  **have sex**  **with the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 42-43.**  **Moreover, Appellant's**  **profile was**  **found in**  **a non**  **sperm fraction**  **taken from**  **the crotch**  **of the**  **victim's underwear,**  **which would**  **sug�est there**  **was**

**5 Because**  **the information**  **contained in**  **the ex**  **parte motion**  **was provided**  **to Appellant**  **by the**  **Commonwealth in**  **discovery, the**  **court declined**  **to rule**  **on the**  **motion in**  **an ex**  **parte fashion**  **without giving**  **the Commonwealth**  **an opportunity**  **to respond.**  **(N.T. at**  **21-24, 44-45).** 

**6 Patrice**  **Ferlan ("Ferlan"),**  **a forensic**  **DNA scientist**  **with the**  **Pennsylvania State**  **Police ("PSP"),**  **later testified**  **that Appellant's**  **DNA was**  **not present**  **in the**  **sperm fraction**  **of the**  **external genitalia**  **sample or**  **the sperm**  **fraction of**  **the crotch**  **area of**  **the underwear.**  **(N.T. at**  **387, 399).**  

### 15**some sort**  **of contact**  **between Appellant**  **and the**  **crotch of**  **the victim's**  **underwear. Id.**  **at 38.**  **7 As** 

**such, this**  **was not**  **a case**  **of misidentification.**  **Id. at**  **42. '**  **Regarding Appellant's**  **original motion,**  **the court**  **questioned how**  **the DN1**  **profile of**  **another person**  **would establish**  **the consensual**  **nature of**  **this encounter, negate**  **th �**  **element of**  **forced penetration regarding**  **the rape**  **charge, or**  **disprove the**  **allegations against Appellant. (N.T.**  **I at**  **20, 26,**  **30). Regarding**  **Appellant's ex**  **parte motion,**  **the court**  **questioned whether**  **the evidence**  **actually showed**  **that the**  **victim was**  **untruthful. Id.**  **at 47,**  **49-50. On**  **the information**  **sheet, the**  **victim stated**  **she did**  **not have**  **sexual intercourse**  **within the**  **past two**  **weeks. Id.**  **at 47**  **(emphasis added).**  **When confronted**  **with the**  **DNA results,**  **the victim**  **did not**  **recant or**  **admit she**  **had sexual**  **intercourse within two**  **weeks, but**  **rather stated**  **she engaged**  **in sexual**  **inter p** **ourse approximately**  **two weeks**  **prior. Id.**  **Furthermore, the**  **DNA expert**  **would not**  **be able**  **to establish**  **when the**  **victim would have**  **had intercourse**  **with another**  **individual, or**  **when the**  **DNA**
**source would have been placed**  **in the**  **underwear. Id.**  **at 28-30.**  **After reviewing**  **legal authority,**  **the court**  **weighed the**  **limited probative**  **value of**  **admitting DNA**  **evidence to**  **show the**  **victim had**  **sexual relations with someone o(her than**  **Appellant against**  **the clear prejudice of**  **impugning the**  **morality and**  **integrity of the**  **victim by**  **doing so,**  **and the**  **court found**  **that the**  **prejudice outweighed any**  **probative value. (N.T. at**  **31-36, 40-42,**  **52-53). Therefore,**  **the evidence**  **was precluded.**  **Id. at**  **53.**
**I "The**  **purpose of**  **the Rape**  **Shield Law**  **is to**  **prevent a**  **trial from**  **shifting its**  **focus from**  **the**
**i culpability**  **of the**  **accused toward**  **the virtue**  **and chastity**  **of the**  **victim. The**  **Rape Shield**  **Law is** 

**7 The**  **DNA expert**  **testified that**  **Appellant's DNA**  **profile was**  **found on**  **the Y**  **chromosome DNA**  **profile of**  **a non-sperm**  **fraction of**  **the crotch**  **area of**  **the victim's underwear,**  **in a**  **mixture l**  **which showed**  **two different**  **people. (N.T.**  **at 387,**  **401-02). 16** **intended to**  **exclude irrelevant**  **and abusive**  **inquiries regarding**  **prior sexual**  **conduct of**  **sexual**

**assault complainants."**  

### Commonwealth **v. Burns,**  **988 A.2d**  **684, 689**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2009) (footnotes**  **and citations**  **omitted). "[T]he**  **Rape Shield**  **law will**  **bow to**  **a defendant's**  **right to**  **confront and**  **cross-examine when**  **a specific**  **proffer demonstrates**  **that the**  **proposed inquiry**  **is intended**  **to elicit**  **relevant evidence, which**  **is more**  **probative than**  **prejudicial, and**  **which is**  **not cumulative**  **of other**  **evidence available without**  **encroaching upon**  **Rape Shield**  **law protections."**  

### Commonwealth **v. Nieves,**  **582 A.2d**  **341, 34** **7 (Pa.**  **Super. 1990).**  **In** 

### Nieves, **the Superior**  **Court found**  **that such evidence**  **was inadmissible**  **where it**  **merely provided**  **an alternate source**  **for evidence**  **of sexual**  **abuse without precluding**  **the appellant's**  **guilt.** 

### Id. **at 349.**  **In_** 

### Commonwealth **v. Burns,**  **988 A.2d**  **684 (Pa.**  **Super. 2009),**  **the Superior**  **Court noted**  **that the**  **Rape Shield**  **law is**  **inapplicable if**  **the evidence**  **(1) negates**  **directly the**  **act of**  **intercourse with**  **which a**  **defendant is**  **charged; (2)**  **demonstrates a**  **witness' bias**  **or attacks**  **that credibility;**  **or (3)**  **tends to**  **directly exculpate**  **the accused**  **by showing**  **that the**  **alleged victim**  **is biased**  **and thus**  **has a**  **motive to**  **lie, fabricate,**  **or seek**  **retribution via**  **prosecution.** 

### Id. **at 690.**  **In** 

### Burns, **the Court**  **found that**  **DNA located**  **on the**  **victim's shorts**  **which did**  **not match**  **the defendant's**  **DNA was**  **inadmissible, because**  **any evidence**  **that the**  **victim engaged**  **in sexual**  **activity with**  **another person**  **did not**  **negate the**  **sexual assault**  **by the**  **defendant.** 

### Id. **at 692-93.**  **In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Cramer,**  **_ A.3d**  **_, 2018**  **WL 4232479**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2018), the**  **defendant admitted**  **he and**  **the victim**  **engaged in**  **sexual activity**  **but claimed**  **it was**  **consensual.** 

### Id. **at** ***4-5. Citing**  **the Rape**  **Shield law,**  **the trial**  **court precluded**  **a DNA**  **expert from**  **testifying about**  **forensic results**  **which showed**  **three contributors**  **of sperm**  **on the**  **victim's underwear.**  

### Id. **at** ***4. The**  **Superior Court**  **affirmed, stating,**  **"Appellant's argument**  **that the**  **DNA evidence**  **was 17** **relevant to**  **show that**  **the Victim**  **engaged in**  **sexual relations**  **with other**  **individuals is**  **irrelevant to** 



## . **I i**  **the issue**  **of whether**  **the Victim**  **consented to**  **having sex**  **with Appellant."**  **Id. at**  ***:5.**
**' '**  **' I**  **The defendant**  **in Cramer**  **further argued**  **the testimony**  **was relevant**  **to "show**  **that the**  **I I**  **Complainant lied**  **to the**  **hospital staff**  **in two**  **questionnaires that**  **the Victim**  **completed, where**  **she I**  **' answered**  **that she**  **had not**  **had sexual**  **intercourse with**  **anyone in**  **either the**  **past fi�e**  **days or**  **two**

**. I**  **I weeks."**  **Cramer, 2018**  **WL 4232479,**  **at** ***6. According**  **to the**  **defendant, the**  **DNlt\. forensic**  

## I **expert could**  **testify that**  **based on**  **his analysis**  **of the**  **underpants, the**  **victim had**  **s�xual intercourse** 

**. '**  **seven to**  **ten days**  **ago with**  **her ex-boyfriend**  **and thus,**  **the victim**  **lied on**  **the questionnaires.**  **Id.** 

## I
**I The**  **Superior Court**  **disagreed, finding**  **that impeaching**  **the victim**  **through the**  **DNA expert**  **in relation**  **to the**  **victim's answers**  **on the**  **questionnaires would**  **also have**  **been irrelevant.**  **Id.** 

## I **The instant**  **case is**  **very similar**  **to Cramer.**  **Both defendants**  **admitted en** **� aging**  **in sexual**  **activity with**  **the victims.**  **Both claimed**  **the victims**  **consented. The**  **proffered testimony**  **in both**  **I '**  **cases was**  **from a**  **DNA analyst**  **about testing**  **which showed**  **three contributors**  **of kperm**  **on the**  **I i**  **victims' underwear.**  **The defendants**  **in both**  **cases argued**  **that DNA**  **testimony w�s**  **relevant to** 

**' I**  **show that**  **the victims**  **lied when**  **they originally**  **stated they**  **did not**  **have sexual**  **intercourse with**  **anyone in**  **the recent**  **past. In**  **both cases, evidence**  **of the**  **victim's sexual**  **conductlwith other**  **� persons**  **was of**  **little relevance**  **to the**  **issue of**  **consent, and**  **impeaching the**  **victim;s through**  **a I**  **I DNA**  **expert about**  **answers they**  **gave in**  **earlier statements**  **would have**  **been irrel6vant.**  

### ! **When reviewing**  **whether the**  **trial court**  **properly found**  **that the**  **Rape Shield**  **law !**  **precluded evidence**  **of the**  **victim's prior**  **sexual activity,**  **the Superior**  **Court's standard**  **of review**  **I I**  **is to**  **determine whether**  **the trial**  **court committed**  **an abuse**  **of discretion.**  **Cramefi, 2018**  **WL I**  **� I**  **4232479, at**  ***5. Because**  **there was**  **no abuse**  **of discretion**  **in this**  **case, the**  **claim hmst**  **fail.**
**18 IV.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not err**  **in determining**  **that testimony**  **from two**  **Commonwealth**

**witnesses, whom**  **the victim**  **spoke to**  **after the**  **alleged assault,**  **constituted prior**  **consistent statements.**  **Appellant next**  **claims the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **determining that**  **testimony fr** **om two**  **Commonwealth witnesses,**  **whom the**  **victim spoke to**  **after the**  **assault, constituted prior consistent**  **statements. See**  **Statement. Relevant sections of**  **Pennsylvania Rule**  **of Evidence**  **613 (Witness's**  **Prior Consistent**  **Statement to**  **Rehabilitate), read**  **as follows:**  **( c)**  **Witness's Prior**  **Consistent Statement**  **to Rehabilitate.**  **Evidence of**  **a witness's**  **prior consistent**  **statement is**  **admissible to**  **rehabilitate the**  **witness's credibility**  **if the**  **opposing party**  **is given**  **an opportunity**  **to cross-examine**  **the witness**  **about the**  **statement and**  **the statement**  **is offered to**  **rebut an**  **express or**  **implied charge**  **of: (**  **1) fabrication,**  **bias, improper**  **influence or**  **motive, or**  **faulty memory**  **and the**  **statement was**  **made before**  **that which**  **has been**  **charged existed**  **or arose;**  **or (2)**  **having made a**  **prior inconsistent**  **statement, which**  **the witness**  **has denied**  **or explained,**  **and the**  **consistent statement supports**  **the witness's,**  **denial or**  **explanation. Pa.RE.**  **613(c). When**  **a witness's**  **testimony is**  **challenged as**  **the product**  **of inaccurate**  **memory or**  **faulty recollection,**  **a consistent**  **statement made by**  **the witness**  **prior to**  **the time**  **of the**  **charged faulty**  **memory is**  **admissible in**  **response to**  **the attack.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Smith, 586**  **A'.2d 957,**  **963-64 (Pa.**  **Super. 1991).**  **Where counsel**  **cross-examines a**  **witness as**  **to their**  **ability t** **o1 recall**  **events due**  **to high**  **alcohol consumption,**  **prior consistent**  **statements are**  **admissible. Comm** **� nwealth**  **v. Paolello,**  **665 A.2d**  **439, 452-53 (Pa. 1995). If**  **a witness**  **explains an**  **inconsistent statement**  **introduced by**  **the cross-examiner,**  **a consistent**  **statement supporting**  **the witness's**  **explanation is**  **admissible. Commonwealth**  **v. Harris,**  **852 A.2d**  **1168, 1176**  **(Pa. 2004).**  **Furthdr, prior**  **consistent statements**  **are admissible**  **to refute**  **a charge**  **of fabrication**  **if the**  **prior consistent** **1 statement**  **was made**  **before the**  **motive to**  **lie existed.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Busanet, 54**  **A.3d 35,**  **53 (Pa.**  **2012). I**  **19 In**  **her opening**  **statement to**  **the jury,**  **Appellant's counsel**  **immediately attacked**  **the**

**victim's credibility**  **by stating:**  **the only**  **reason that**  **we're here**  **today is**  **because [the**  **victim] was**  **caught having**  **sex with**  **my client,**  **Manuel. That's**  **the only**  **reason why**  **we're here**  **today.! She**  **got caught.**  **Plain and**  **simple. This**  **was someone**  **that her**  **sister was**  **trying to**  **establish a**  **relationship with.**  **[The prosecutor]**  **told you**  **that. And**  **rather than**  **just tell**  **the truth**  **and deal**  **with those**  **consequences, she**  **decided to**  **lie about**  **it. She**  **decided to**  **lie about**  **it rather**  **than coming**  **clean. (N.T.**  **at 162-63).**  **Counsel claimed**  **the sex**  **was consensual.**  **Id. at**  **168. During**  **cross­ !**  **examination, counsel**  **questioned the**  **victim about**  **her alcohol**  **consumption and**  **lack of**  **memory. Id.**  **at 267-68,**  **273, 276.**  **Counsel very**  **aggressively questioned**  **the victim**  **about a**  **prior statement**  **she gave**  **to police,**  **which the**  **victim explained**  **was in**  **some respects**  **not true**  **or ihconsistent**  **with her**  **trial testimony.**  **Id. at**  **269-73. Counsel**  **challenged the**  **victim's credibility**  **by confronting**  **her with**  **the preliminary**  **hearing transcript.**  **Id. at**  **276-79, 281-85.**  **Counsel also**  **cha**
**, llenged**  **the victim's**  **version of**  **events by**  **pointing out**  **the lack**  **of injuries**  **or tom**  **clothing.** 

## Ia. **at 288-92.**  **On re-direct**  **examination, when**  **the prosecutor**  **asked the**  **victim to**  **explain her**  **prior statement**  **to police**  **and testimony**  **from the**  **preliminary hearing,**  **the following**  **occurred: PROSECUTOR:** 

**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: You**  **[sic] asked**  **a lot**  **of questions**  **about things**  **before and** 

**after the**  **assault and**  **who you**  **said what**  **to when. Your**  **testimony here**  **today was**  **you woke**  **up, he**  **was on**  **top of** **you, he**  **pulled your**  **pants down**  **and penetrated**  **you with**  **his penis,**  **correct? Correct.**  **And you**  **didn't consent**  **to that?**  **No, I didn't.**  **You didn't**  **say it**  **was all**  **right? No.**  **Have you**  **ever told**  **this version**  **-- that**  **what you**  **just testified**  **to of**  **that incident**  **any differently?**  **No.**



### 20**PROSECUTOR:**

**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:** 
**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:** 
**VICTIM: (N.T.**  **at 296-98).**  **Okay. So**  **when you**  **told the**  **detective, initial**  **detecti've, about**  **how the**  **driving situation**  **was, did**  **that in**  **any way**  **impact the**  **fact that**  **you were**  **raped? No.**  **1 And**  **whether you**  **had one**  **drink or**  **three drinks**  **at the**  **club, did**  **that have**  **any impact**  **on the**  **fact that**  **you were**  **sexually assaulted**  **and how**  **it was**  **done? No.**  **I still**  **remember everything.**  **When --**  **whether you**  **ran out**  **of the**  **home immediately**  **after being**  **raped or**  **you ran**  **upstairs and**  **got your**  **b�longings, again,**  **does it**  **change how**  **you were**  **raped that**  **day? No.** 

**After the**  **victim testified,**  **Appellant sought**  **to preclude**  **proffered testimony**  **from the**  **victim's mother**  **and friend,**  **by claiming**  **their testimony**  **would only**  **serve to**  **bolster the**  **victim's credibility,**  **a prompt**  **complaint had**  **already been**  **established, and**  **the testimony**  

### bf **the friend**  **would be**  **hearsay because**  **the victim**  **had already**  **testified about**  **their conversation.** **(N.T. at**  **324- 25).**  **8 The**  **prosecutor replied**  **that the**  **testimony would**  **be admissible**  **as evidence**  **of a**  **prompt**



### . **I complaint,**  **or as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement because**  **the victim**  **had been**  **"impeached to**  **a great I**  **degree**
**... "**  **Id. at**  **325-26. Appellant's**  **counsel initially**  **agreed that**  **she had**  **atta�ked the**  **victim's credibility,**  **before recanting**  **and stating**  **"I did**  **not - -**  **as to**  **the events**  **that she**  **ha�**

**- - as**  **to, I**  **guess, her**  **rape allegations,**  **her aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **allegations, I**  **have not**  **attacked her**  **I credibility**  **on, I**  **believe, either**  **one of**  **them, as**  **to her**  **version of**  **the events."**  **Id. at**  **327-28. I**  **The court**  **noted that**  **counsel had**  **clearly attacked**  **the victim's**  **credibility by**  **calling the**  **victim a**  **liar in**  **her opening**  **statement, claiming**  **the sexual**  **conduct was**  **consensual, and** 

**8 During**  **the victim's**  **re-direct examination,**  **the prosecutor**  **presented as**  **a pri9r**  **consistent statement**  **text messages**  **about the**  **assault that**  **were exchanged**  **between the**  **victim and**  **her sister.**  **(N.T. at**  **299-305). Appellant**  **did not**  **object to**  **this testimony**  **being offered**  **as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement. Id.**  **I 21** **challenging the**  **victim's credibility**  **on cross-examination**  **of the**  **victim. (N.T.**  **at 326-29).** 

**Therefore, the**  **court ruled**  **that the**  **witnesses would**  **be permitted**  **to testify**  **about prior**  **consistent statements.**  **Id. at**  **328-29. Appellant**  **took exception**  **to the**  **ruling. Id.**  **at 329.**  **C6unsel also**  **made I**  **a blanket**  **objection immediately**  **prior to**  **the testimony**  **of the**  **friend. Id.**  **at 341.**  **9 Appellant**  **clearly accused**  **the victim**  **of fabrication**  **and/or faulty**  **memory, while**  **questioning the**  **victim's ability**  **to recall**  **events due**  **to high**  **alcohol consumption.:**  **Counsel also**  **introduced prior**  **inconsistent statements made**  **by the**  **victim. Therefore,**  **the priot**  **consistent statements**  **were properly**  **admitted to**  **rehabilitate the**  **victim by**  **rebutting the**  **charge of**  **fabrication**
**or faulty**  **memory, and**  **to support**  **the victim's**  **explanation of**  **the prior**  **inconsistent statements.**  **Assuming, arguendo,**  **the evidence**  **was not**  **admissible as**  **a prior**  **consistent statement,**  **the Superior**  **Court can**  **affirm the**  **court's decision**  **"if there**  **is any**  **basis to**  **support it,**  **even if**  **we rely** 
**on different**  **grounds to**  **affirm." Commonwealth**  **v. Williams,**  **35 A.3d**  **44, 47**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2011). i**  **Evidence of**  **a complaint**  **of sexual**  **assault, independent**  **of its**  **potential admissibility**  **as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement, is**  **admissible to**  **prove a**  **complaint was**  **made and**  **to identify**  **the specific**  **incident with**  **the offense**  **charged. Commonwealth**  **v. Snoke,**  **580 A.2d**  **295, 300**  **(Pa. 1990).**  **In the**  **present case,**  **testimony established that**  **the victim**  **and Kaitlyn**  **left!Appellant's residence**  **immediately after**  **the sexual**  **assault and**  **got into**  **their car,**  **at which**  **time Appellant** 

**9 The**  **sole basis**  **for Appellant's**  **objection to**  **admissibility of**  **the prior**  **consistebt statements**  **was an**  **assertion that**  **counsel did**  **not attack**  **the credibility**  **of the**  **victim. Appellant**  **should not**  **be permitted**  **to advance**  **any other**  **reason on**  **appeal. See**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Cline, 177**  **A.3d 922,**  **927 (Pa.**  **Super. 2017)**  **( a new**  **and different**  **theory of**  **relief may**  **not be**  **successfully advanced**  **for the**  **first time**  **on appeal);**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Cole, 167**  **A.3d 49,**  **64 (Pa.**  **Super. 2017)**  **(defendant waived**  **claims where**  **objection at**  **trial made**  **no mention**  **of the**  **specific objection**  **the defendant**  **is raising**  **on appeal);**  **Commonwealth v.**  **McGriff, 160**  **A.3d 863, 871 (Pa. Super.**  **2017) (if counsel**  **states the**  **grounds for**  **an objection,**  **then all**  **other unspecified grounds**  **are waived**  **and cannot**  **be raised**  **for the**  **first time**  **on appealf**  **22 '** 

**came outside**  **and tried**  **to get**  **them to**  **stay. Still**  **images from**  **a safety**  **coalition video**  **taken at**  

## I **7:23 a.m.**  **and 7:32**  **a.m. showed**  **Appellant standing**  **at the front**  **of the**  **victim's cat**  **leaning into** 



## - **I the**  **driver's window.**  **The victim's**  **car then**  **left the**  **scene at**  **around 7:56**  **a.m. /** 

**I While**  **Appellant was**  **at the**  **car, the**  **victim was**  **crying and**  **talking on**  **the phone**  **with !**  **I Hatchel.**  **When they**  **left Appellant's**  **residence, the**  **victim drove**  **to Hatchel's**  **house and**  **arrived** 

## i **there between**  **9:00 a.m.**  **and 9:30**  **a.m. that**  **morning. The**  **victim promptly**  **told H�tchel**  **that she**  **I I**  **I was**  **asleep on**  **a couch**  **and when**  **she awoke**  **a male**  **was on**  **top of**  **her. The**  **victim related**  **that she**  

### ! **kept telling**  **him "no"**  **and tried**  **to push**  **him off,**  **but the**  **male "stuck**  **it in**  **her." Tlie**  **victim was**  **I I**  **I crying**  **hysterically when**  **she told**  **Hatchel what**  **happened. After**  **that, the**  **victim �ent**  **home and**  

### told **her mother.**  **' 0**  

### i **Testimony of**  **a prompt**  **complaint is**  **competent evidence**  **when limited**  **to 1e**  **stablish that**  **a complaint**  **was made**  **and to**  **identify the**  **occurrence complained**  **of with**  **the offenke**  **charged.** 

## I **Commonwealth v.**  **Freeman, 441**  **A.2d 1327,**  **1331 (Pa.**  **Super. 1982).**  **There is**  **a presumption**  **that** 

## I **a victim**  **has not**  **had time**  **to fabricate**  **if a**  **prompt complaint**  **is made,**  **and the**  **vic�im's story**  **is** 

## I **given more**  **credibility.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Thomas,**  **904 A.2d**  **964, 970**  **(Pa. Sup�r.**  **2006). In**  

## I **Freeman, testimony**  **by the**  **victim's sister-in-law**  **confirming that**  **the victim**  **rela�ed the**  **incident** 

## I **to her**  **immediately following**  **its occurrence**  **was admissible**  **to show**  **prompt complaint.**  **441** 

## I **A.2d at**  **1332. Thus,**  **the testimony**  **in this**  **case would**  **be admissible**  **as a**  **prompt r** **omplaint. Furthermore,**  **an erroneous**  **ruling on an**  **evidentiary issue**  **does not**  **automatically entitle**  **a**



## . **I defendant**  **to relief**  **where the**  **error was**  **harmless.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Yockey,**  **158 A.3d**  **1246,**

**10 In**  **addition to**  **prom p** **t complaint** **, the**  **prosecutor ar** **g ued**  **that this**  **testimon y**  **would also**  **be admissible**  **as an**  **excited utterance**  **or present**  **sense impression.**  **(N .T.**  **at 326).**  

## I **23 1254**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2017). Not**  **all errors**  **at trial**  **entitle an**  **appellant to**  **a new**  **trial, and**  **the harmless**  **i error**  **doctrine reflects**  **the reality**  **that an**  **accused is**  **entitled to**  **a fair**  **trial but**  **not a:**  **perfect trial.**  

### Commonwealth **v. Green,**  **162 A.3d**  **509, 519**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2017). An**  **error may**  **be harmless**  **if the**  **properly admitted**  **evidence of**  **guilt is**  **so overwhelming**  **and the**  **prejudicial effectl**  **so insignificant** 

**I by**  **comparison that**  **it is**  **clear beyond**  **a reasonable**  **doubt the**  **error could**  **not have**  **contributed to**  **the verdict.**  

### Commonwealth **v. Stetler,**  **95 A.3d**  **864, 890**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2014). Presently,** 

**the properly**  **admitted evidence**  **of guilt**  **was overwhelming.**  **Video surveillance**  **showed the**  **victim arriving**  **at Appellant's**  **residence. The**  **victim testified**  **that Appellant**  **put his**  **fingers into**  **her vagina**  **without her**  **consent in**  **the bedroom**  **and used**  **force to**  **sex �** **ally assault**  **her downstairs.**  **The victim's**  **sister saw**  **Appellant's hand**  **move towards**  **the victim**  **while they**  **were upstairs**  **in bed,** **went downstairs**  **to find**  **Appellant on**  **top of**  **the victim,** **and heard**  **her sister** 
**scream for**  **help while**  **trying to**  **push Appellant**  **off of**  **her. Appellant's**  **DNA profile**  **was found**  **on the**  **non-sperm fraction**  **of DNA**  **taken from**  **the victim's underwear. Appellant a�mitted**  **he inserted**  **his fingers**  **into the**  **victim's vagina while**  **they were**  **upstairs in**  **bed and**  **again on**  **the couch**  **downstairs. Furthermore,**  **Appellant sent**  **the victim's**  **sister a**  **text message**  **after the** 

**I I**  **incident asking**  **Kaitlyn to**  **tell the**  **victim he**  **was sorry**  **and asking**  **for forgiveness.**  **It is**  **also clear**  **beyond a**  **reasonable doubt**  **that the**  **testimony of**  **Hatchel and**  **Aston was**  **not I**  **prejudicial and**  **did not**  **contribute to**  **the verdict.**  **Hatchel testified**  **that the**  **victi111 told**  **her a**  **male inserted**  **his penis**  **into her**  **vagina. Aston**  **testified the**  **victim said**  **she was**  **raped. i**  **Nevertheless, the**  **jury returned**  **not guilty**  **verdicts on**  **the counts**  **of rape**  **and sexual**  **assault. Hatchel**  **further testified**  **that the**  **victim never**  **told her**  **the male**  **inserted his**  **fingers into**  **her vagina.**  **Nevertheless, the**  **jury found**  **Appellant guilty**  **of aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **for that**  **specific act.** 
**24 V.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not impose**  **an illegal sentence**  **on counts**  **three and**  **four of**  **the**

**Information because**  **they do**  **not merge**  **for sentencing**  **purposes. Finally,**  **Appellant asserts**  **the court**  **imposed an**  **illegal sentence**  **on counts**  **1t hree**  **and four**  **of the**  **Information because**  **they should**  **have merged**  **for sentencing**  **purposes.** 

### See **Statement. At**  **sentencing, the**  **prosecutor argued**  **that the**  **two counts**  **of aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **did not**  **merge for**  **sentencing purposes**  **because these**  **were two**  **distinct acts.**  **(N.T.S. at**  **2, 14).**  **The aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **charge in**  **count four**  **was based**  **on digital**  **penetration that**  **occurred without**  **the victim's**  **consent in**  **the upstairs**  **bedroom. Id.**  **at 14-15.**  **The aggravated**  **I indecent**  **assault charge**  **in count**  **three was**  **based on**  **digital penetration**  **by forcible**  **compulsion that**  **occurred downstairs.**  **Id. at**  **15. Appellant's**  **counsel, who**  **did not**  **represent Appellant**  **at trial,**  **was unable**  **to respond.**  **Id. at**  **8, 15-16.**  **Thereafter, the**  **sentencing court**  **agreed with**  **the i**  **Commonwealth that**  **these were**  **two distinct**  **acts which**  **occurred in**  **two different:**  **locations of**  **the house**  **at two**  **different times,**  **approximately twenty**  **to thirty**  **minutes apart.**  **Id. at.**  **16. !**  **Merger of**  **sentences is**  **governed generally**  **by Section**  **9765 of**  **the Sentencing**  **Code, which**  **provides: No**  **crimes shall**  **merge for**  **sentencing purposes**  **unless the**  **crimes arise**  **from a single**  **criminal act**  **and all**  **of the**  **statutory elements**  **of one**  **offense are**  **included in**  **the statutory**  **elements of** **the other offense.**  **Where crimes**  **merge for**  **sentencing 1** **purposes, the**  **court may**  **sentence the**  **defendant only**  **on the**  **higher graded**  **offense. 42**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **9765. Thus,**  **the merger**  **statute prohibits**  **merger unless**  **the crimes**  **arise from**  **a I**  **single criminal**  **act and**  **all statutory**  **elements of**  **one of**  **the offenses**  **are included**  **in the**  **statutory i**  **elements of**  **the other.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Tanner, 61**  **A.3d 1043,**  **1046 (Pa.**  **Sup�r. 2013).**  **When considering**  **whether there**  **is a**  **single criminal**  **act or**  **multiple crim�nal**  **acts for**  **I purposes**  **of merger**  **at sentencing,**  **the question**  **is not**  **whether there**  **is a**  **break in**  **the chain**  **of**
**25 criminal**  **activity, but**  **rather whether**  **the actor**  **committed multiple**  **criminal acts**  **b�yond that**  **! which**  **is necessary**  **to establish**  **the bare**  **elements of**  **the additional**  **crime.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Pettersen,**  **49 A.3d**  **903, 912**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2012). In**  

### Pettersen, **the defendant's**  **three convictions**  **for aggravated**  **assault did**  **not merge**  **even though**  **the time**  **between the**  **acts was**  **r¢latively short,**  **where the**  **defendant struck**  **the victim**  **in the**  **head with**  **a hammer,**  **stabbed the**  **vic�im in**  **the chest**  **and back,**  **and then**  **attempted to**  **suffocate the**  **victim by**  **placing a**  **bag over**  **her he,ad.**  

### Id. **Moreover, in**  

### Commonwealth **v. Rhoades,**  **8 A.3d**  **912 (Pa.**  **Super. 2010),**  **two counts**  **of**
**' '**  **aggravated assault**  **were not**  **subject to**  **merger for**  **sentencing purposes**  **where the**  **bharges were**  **based on**  **two different**  **subsections of**  **the statute.**  

### Id. **at 918;**  

### see **also Commonwealth**  **v. Orie,**  **88 A.3d 983,**  **1020 (Pa. Super. 2014) (two**  **separate convictions**  **for theft**  **by diversion**  **of services**  **did I**  **not merge**  **where the**  **charged acts**  **involved different**  **time periods**  **and the**  **utilization of**  **different employees).**  **In the**  **present case,**  **the two**  **counts of**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault did**  **not ,arise**  **from a**  **single criminal**  **act. Rather,**  **Appellant committed**  **multiple criminal**  **acts beyond**  **that which**  **was necessary**  **to establish**  **the bare**  **elements of**  **the additional**  **crime. The**  **acts involv�d**  **different time**  **I periods,**  **separated by**  **twenty to**  **thirty minutes,**  **in different**  **locations of**  **the house:.**  **Additionally, the**  **charges were**  **based on**  **two different**  **subsections of**  **the statute.**  **11 Therefore,**  **,f\ppellant' s**  **claim in**  **this regard**  **must fail.** 

**11 The**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault count committed**  **in the**  **upstairs bedroom**  **,Was based**  **on lack**  **of consent**  **found at**  **18 Pa.C.S.A.**  **§ 3125(a)(l).**  **The aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **count committed**  **on the**  **downstairs sofa**  **was based**  **on forcible**  **compulsion found**  **at 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3125(a)(2). 26**  **I**

### C�aD�� **j**

**Bas e** **d on**  **th e**  **fo re** **going, th** **e t rial**  **c ourt**  **p r** **operly: (1)**  **admitt e** **d App**  **e llant's**  

### rimenfalsi **convictions; (2)**  **found that**  **Appellant failed**  **to make**  **a timely**  **objection to**  **continuL** 

# I **re p**  **re s**  **e ntation**  **b y**  **th e**  **pu b** **lic d** **e fend** **e r,**  **or in**  **th e**  **al te** **rnativ e**  **found t**  **hat continu** **e d r** **e pr**  **e s**  **e ntation**  **I was**  **n ot**  **a confli**  **c t**  **of in** **t e** **r est;**  **(3) d**  **e ni**  **e d**  **App e** **llant's r** **e ques** **t to**  **introdu c** **e evid**  **e n** **c J r** **e la**  **t ing**  **to**



## - **I othe** **r s**  **e x�al**  **re lations**  **involving th** **e vi**  **c tim;**  **(4) de** **te rmin**  **e d**  **that the**  **t e**  **stimony ofh1/o**  **Comm o** **nw e** **alth witn**  **e ss**  **e s**  **was admissi**  **b l**  **e as**  **pri o** **r c** **onsist e** **nt stat** **e ments**  **in re** **latioh to**  **the vi**  **c tim's**  **p r** **ompt c**  **omplaint; and**  **( 5)**  **c on** **c lud** **e d**  **tha t**  **two c** **oun t** **s of**  **aggrava te** **d ind**  **e d**  **e nt**  **assault did**  **not merg** **e for**  **s e** **n te** **ncing purpos**  **e s**  **wh e** **r e t** **h e** **y w e** **r e b** **as e** **d on**  **diff e** **r e** **n t c** **riminal a** **c ls.**  **Th e** **r e**  **for e**  **, t**  **his appeal**  **should be**  **d e** **ni e** **d.**

**BY THE**  **COURT:**
**Dat e**  **: -"""'O=--** 

**c =**  **t =-**  **ob =-**  **e =**  **r �**  **3 �,** **=2�0� 18**  **�- DONALD**  **R. TOT**  **ARO, JUDGE** 

**Copi e**  **s: Fritz**  **K. Hav** **er sti**  **c k,**  **Esquire, Assis** **t ant**  **Distri c** **t Attorn** **e y** 

**H e**  **ath e** **r L.**  **Adams, Esquir** **e ,**  **Counsel fo** **r App**  **e llan** **t**



### 27 **r l>**  **I� ►**  **c.n -I**  **r:, ::0**  **n 0**  **C: �,;**  **,-...:,** 

# = **n** 

# - **c..;i** 

## ,- **C)** 

# ,.,, **n ::0**  **-4 ::;.:**  **I 0**  **w** 

# ...., **""" n**  **::r;: 0**  **w** 

### c:: **N -I**  **u:, (I)**  

# 0

- �

. T �

-I • • :::0 �C OMMONWEALTH OF PENN S YLVA NIA

PA R. A
. P
. 1 9 2 5 OP INI ON V S
. IN THE C OURT OF C O MM ON PLEA S OF LA NCA S TER C OU

NTY , PENN S YLVA

NIA
.

. ,"' ,1� CRIMINAL i c : '.. " \ � � · /' ! '

. ' · , , />: < · '- �

. '



# ·-:::; ) � ' '< ( >- -: ;: }

. 13 1 7 MDA 2 0 1 8 \� \ � "> 

### < �:\

. <� j } 

## 1:� ' ; �· ?\ CP
- 3 6

- CR
- 0 0 0 1 2 8 6

- 2 0 1 7 ( }. ,, . - c: � ) 

### \� ; �\ c, �� } v, · 

# c " " ) } MA NUEL PAGA

N , JR.

B Y TO TARO , J
. Pre s ently b e fore the Su

p erior C ourt o fP ennsylvani a i s an a pp e al fil e d by Manuel P agan, Jr. ( " App ell ant " ) from the j udgment o f s entenc e imp o s e d on July 1 1 , 2 0 1 8
. F or �he re as ons
state d herein, the a

pp e al should b e deni e d

.

B A C K G R O U N D On April 1 1 , 2 0 1 8 , App ell ant a pp e are d b e fore the c ourt for a j ury tri al on one c ount o f ' ' ra p e by forc ib le c ompul s ion, one c ount o f s exual as s ault, two c ounts o faggravate d inde c ent

as s ault, and two c ounts o finde c ent as s ault. 1 (Note s o fT e stimony, Tri al at 6 8

- 7 0) (hereinafter

"N
. T
. " )

. At tri al , Lauren A ston ( " victim " ) te sti fi e d that on Novemb er 2 9 , 2 0 1 6 , . when she was
eighte en-ye ars - o ld, she and her si ster went to App ell ant' s st udio to drink and hang out. I d

. at 24 7
-4 9
. She had never met App ell ant b e fore that evening . I d

. at 24 9

- 5 0
. The victim, her si ster,
and App ell ant then le ft the st udio and went to App ellant' s re s idenc e . I d

. at 2 5 L When they got to the re s idenc e , all thre e went u p stairs to e at and go to sle ep . (N

. T
. at I I 2 5 4 )

. After the victim laid down to go to sle ep , App ell ant put hi s hands down her p ants and put hi s fingers into her vagina. I d

. at 2 5 4

- 5 5
. The victim, who did not give App ellant c ons ent, le ft the b e dro om and went downstairs to sle ep on the s o fa

. I d

. at 2 5 5
- 5 6
. The next thing the victim



### I I 1 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 l ( a) ( l ) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A
. § 3 1 2 4
. 1 , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 5 ( a) (2 ) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 5 ( a) (l) , 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 6 ( a) (2 ) , and 1 8 P a. C
. S
. A. § 3 1 2 6 ( a) (l) , re sp e ctive ly .**remembered was**  **waking up**  **with Appellant**  **on top**  **of her,**  **his hands**  **on her**  **chestJ and**  **his penis**  **in**

**her vagina.**  **Id. at**  **257-58. The**  **victim told**  **Appellant to**  **stop and**  **tried to**  **push him**  **off of**  **her, but Appellant**  **did not**  **stop until the**  **victim's sister**  **came downstairs**  **and pulled**  **him off.**  **Id. at**  **258. '**  **The victim**  **stated that**  **she and**  **her sister**  **then left**  **Appellant's house**  **and got**  **into their**  **car, at**  **which time**  **Appellant came**  **outside and**  **tried to**  **get them**  **to stay.**  **(N.T. at**  **258-59). While**  **Appellant was**  **at the**  **car, the**  **victim was**  **crying and**  **talking on**  **the phone**  **with het**  **friend, Tiffany**  **Hatchel ("Hatchel").**  **Id. at**  **259. When**  **they left**  **Appellant's residence,**  **the victim**  **dropped her**  **sister off**  **at their**  **mother's home**  **and drove**  **to Hatchel'**  **s house,**  **where she**  **told H�tchel**  **what had**  **happened. Id.**  **The victim**  **then went**  **home and**  **told her**  **mother, who**  **called poli�e.**  **Id. at**  **259-60. This**  **all happened**  **on the**  **same day**  **as the**  **sexual assault.**  **Id. The**  **victim's sister,**  **Kaitlyn Aston**  **("Kaitl yn** **"), testified**  **that while**  **they were**  **in bed**  **upstairs, she**  **saw Appellant's**  **hand moving**  **towards the**  **victim. (N.T.**  **at 215).**  **L�ter, after**  **the victim**  **went downstairs,**  **Kaitlyn went**  **downstairs to**  **find Appellant**  **on top**  **oftheivictim. Id.**  **at 218.**  **The victim**  **was screaming**  **for help**  **and trying**  **to push**  **Appellant off**  **of her.:**  **Id. Still**  **images from**  **a safety**  **coalition video**  **showed that**  **on November**  **29, 2016,**  **at 4:56**  **I a.m.,**  **Appellant, the**  **victim, and**  **Kaitlyn arrived**  **at Appellant's**  **home by**  **vehicle. (N.T.**  **at 512-**  **15). At**  **6:58 a.m.,**  **Appellant can**  **be seen**  **standing at**  **the driver's**  **side window**  **of the**  **victim's car.**  **Id. at**  **515-16. Images**  **taken at**  **7:23 a.m.**  **and 7:32**  **a.m. show**  **Appellant standingiat**  **the front**  **of the**  **victim's car**  **leaning into**  **the driver's**  **window. Id.**  **at 516-17.**  **The victim's**  **car then**  **left the** 
**scene at**  **around 7:56**  **a.m. Id.**  **at 518-19.**  **Hatchel testified**  **that on**  **November 29,**  **2016, between**  **7:00 a.m.**  **and 8:00**  **a.m., the**  **victim called**  **her on**  **the telephone.**  **(N.T. at**  **341-42). The**  **victim was**  **hysterical. Id.**  **at 342.**  **Later that** 
**2 morning,**  **between 9:00**  **a.m. and**  **9:30 a.m.,**  **the victim**  **arrived at**  **Hatchel's house**  **and told**  **Hatchel**

**that she**  **was asleep**  **on a**  **couch, she**  **awoke, and**  **a male**  **was on**  **top of**  **her. Id.**  **at 343-44.**  **The victim**  **related that**  **she kept**  **telling him**  **"no" and**  **tried to**  **push him**  **off, but**  **the male**  **then "stuck**  **it in**  **her and**  **that was it." Id.**  **at 344.**  **The victim**  **was crying**  **hysterically and**  **freaking out.**  **Id. When**  **Hatchel was**  **asked whether**  **the victim**  **told her what the**  **male put**  **in her**  **vagina, Hatchel**  **responded that**  **the victim**  **said his**  **penis. Id.**  **at 34** **7. When**  **asked whether**  **the victim**  **told her**  **if the**  **male's fingers**  **went inside her vagina,**  **Hatchel replied,**  **"No, ma'am."**  **Id. Renee Aston**  **("Aston"), the**  **victim's mother,**  **testified that during**  **the late morning**  **or early**  **afternoon hours**  **of November**  **29, 2016,**  **the victim**  **came home**  **and began**  **to cry.**  **(N.T. at**  **348-49). The**  **victim then**  **told her**  **mother that a**  **male held her**  **down and**  **raped her.**  **Id. at 349-**  **50. Aston**  **took her daughter**  **to the**  **hospital. Id.**  **at 351.**  **Detective James Mummau**  **of the**  **Lancaster City**  **Bureau of**  **Police testified that**  **he obtained**  **an audio**  **recording of**  **a conversation**  **Appellant had**  **with his**  **mother on**  **April 6,**  **2018, which**  **was marked**  **as Commonwealth**  **Exhibit #31.**  **(N.T. at**  **526-28). The**  **recording was**  **played for**  **the jury,**  **and Appellant**  **was heard admitting**  **that he**  **had sex**  **with the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 533,**  **596. A**  **second conversation**  **was recorded**  **on April**  **10, 2018,**  **marked as**  **Commonwealth Exhibit**  **#32, in**  **which Appellant**  **referred to**  **the victim**  **as a**  **"bitch," stated**  **his DNA**  **was not**  **found in**  **the victim,**  **and police**  **would not**  **be able**  **to prove**  **they had**  **sex. Id.**  **at 534-35,**  **596-97. Appellant**  **also sent**  **Kaitlyn a**  **text message**  **after the**  **incident stating,**  **"O]ust tell**  **her I'm**  **sorry again**  **and I**  **hope she**  **can forgive**  **me, and**  **I hope**  **she's okay."**  **Id. at**  **223-26; Commonwealth**  **Exhibit #8.**  **Appellant testified**  **at trial**  **and admitted**  **that he**  **inserted his**  **hand into**  **the victim's**  **vagina while**  **upstairs in**  **bed. (N.T.**  **at 626-27).**  **The victim then**  **left the**  **bedroom because**  **he was**  **going 3** **to have**  **sex with**  **her sister.**  **Id. at**  **578-79. Approximately**  **20-30 minutes**  **later, Appellant**  **went**

**downstairs to**  **use the**  **bathroom, he**  **encountered the**  **victim, she**  **suggested they**  **have sex,**  **he inserted**  **his fingers**  **into the**  **victim's vagina**  **again, and**  **they had**  **sexual intercourse.**  **Id. at**  **580-81, 627.**  **Appellant stated**  **the victim**  **was flirting**  **with him**  **and she**  **never said**  **no. Id,**  **at 570, 584.**  **After a**  **three-day trial,**  **Appellant was**  **found not**  **guilty of**  **rape and**  **sexual assault,**  **but guilty**  **on two**  **counts of**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault and**  **two counts**  **of indecent**  **assault. (N.** **T. at**  **722-23). A**  **pre-sentence investigation**  **was ordered.**  **Id. at**  **725. On**  **July 11,**  **2018, the**  **court imposed**  **a sentence**  **of 5-10 years**  **incarceration on**  **count three for**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault involving**  **forcible digital**  **penetration which**  **occurred downstairs.**  **(Notes of**  **Testimony, Sentencing**  **at 30)**  **("N.T.S."). The**  **court imposed**  **a consecutive**  **sentence of**  **2-10 years**  **in prison** 
**on count**  **four for**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault involving**  **digital penetration**  **which occurred**  **upstairs without**  **the victim's**  **consent.** 

### Id. **at 30-31.**  **Concurrent sentences**  **were imposed**  **on the**  **two counts**  **of indecent**  **assault, for**  **an aggregate**  **sentence of**  **7-20 years**  **incarceration. Id.**  **On August**  **10, 2018,**  **Appellant filed**  **the instant Notice**  **of Appeal**  **to the**  **Superior Court.**  **On August**  **29, 2018,**  **Appellant filed**  **a Statement**  **of Errors**  **Complained of**  **on Appeal**  **("Statement"), alleging**  **that: (1)**  **the trial**  **court abused**  **its discretion**  **in determining**  **the probative**  **value of**  **Appellant's 2005**  **crimenfalsi convictions**  **outweighed the**  **prejudicial effect;**  **(2) the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying Appellant's**  **objection to**  **an actual**  **conflict of**  **interest created**  **by his**  **filing of**  **a PCRA**  **Petition involving**  **representation of**  **Appellant in**  **another case**  **by another**  **member of**  **the Public**  **Defender's Office;**  **(3) the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying Appellant's**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment evidence**  **on the**  **grounds of**  **the Rape Shield**  **law; (4)**  **the trial**  **court erred**  **in determining**  **that testimony**  **from two**  **Commonwealth witnesses**  **whom the**  **victim spoke to**  **after**
**4 the**  **assault constituted**  **prior consistent**  **statements; and**  **(5) Appellant's**  **sentence Was**  **illegal**

**because counts**  **three and**  **four of** **the Information**  **should have**  **merged for**  **sentencing purposes.** 

**' '**  

### See **Statement. This**  **opinion is**  **written pursuant**  **to Rule**  **1925(a)ofthe Pennsylv�ia**  **Rules of**  **Appellate Procedure.**  **DISCUSSION I.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not abuse**  **its discretion**  **in determining**  **that the**  **probative value**  **of Appellant's**  **2005 crimen**  **falsi convictions**  **outweighed the**  **prejudicial effect.**  **Appellant first**  **asserts the**  **trial court**  **abused its**  **discretion in**  **determining �** **hat the**  **probative value**  **of his**  **2005** 

### crimenfalsi **convictions outweighed**  **the prejudicial**  **effect arising**  **from the**  **admission of** **the evidence.**  

### See **Statement. Prior**  **to trial,**  **the Commonwealth**  **filed a**  **notice seeking**  **to introduce**  **Appellant's prior**  **juvenile delinquency**  **adjudications from**  **2005, for**  **counts of** **receiving stolen property, burglary,**  **and theft**  **by unlawful**  **taking.** 

### See **Commonwealth's Notice**  **oflntent to**  **Introduc� Evidence**  **of** 

### Crimen Falsi **Conviction Where**  **More Than Ten**  **Years Has**  **Elapsed. Appellant**  **filed a**  **motion in**  **response seeking**  **to preclude**  **this testimony.**  

### See **Defendant's Motion**  

### in **Liminel Relevant**  **sections of** **Pennsylvania Rule**  **of Evidence**  **609, Impeachment**  **by Evidence**  **of a**  **Criminal Conviction,**  **read as**  **follows :**  **(a) In**  **General. For**  **the purpose**  **of attacking**  **the credibility**  **of any**  **witness, evidence**  **that the**  **witness has**  **been convicted**  **of a**  **crime, whether**  **by verdict**  **or by**  **plea of**  **guilty or**  

### nolo **contendere, must**  **be admitted**  **if it**  **involved dishonesty**  **or false**  **statement. (b)**  **Limit on**  **Using the**  **Evidence After**  **10 Years.**  **This subdivision**  **(b) applies**  **if more**  **than 10**  **years have**  **passed since**  **the witness's conviction**  **or release**  **from confinement**  **for it,**  **whichever is**  **later. Evidence**  **of the**  **conviction is**  **admissible only**  **if: (1)**  **its probative**  **value substantially**  **outweighs its**  **prejudicial effect; and**  **(2) the**  **proponent gives**  **an adverse**  **party reasonable**  **written notice**  **of the**  **intent to**  **use it**  **so that**  **the party**  **has a**  **fair opportunity**  **to contest**  **its use.**  **5 (d)**  **Juvenile Adjudications.**  **In a**  **criminal case**  **only, evidence**  **of the**  **adjudication of**  **delinquency for**  **an offense under**  **the Juvenile**  **Act, 42**  **Pa.C.S. § §**  **6301 et!seq.**  **, may**  **be used**  **to impeach**  **the credibility**  **of a**  **witness if** 

**conviction of** 

**the offense,**  **would be**  **admissible to**  **attack the**  **credibility of** **an adult.**  **Pa.R.E. 609.**  **During a**  **pre-trial hearing,**  **the Commonwealth**  **stipulated that**  **Appellant was**  **released from**  **confinement on**  **these offenses**  **more than**  **ten years**  **before the**  **start of**  **trial. (N.T.** **at 9).**  **2 However,**  **the Commonwealth**  **asserted that**  **the crimenfalsi**  **adjudications wouldlbe**  **extremely probative**  **if Appellant**  **elected to**  **testify at**  **trial, because**  **the case**  **would "boil**  **down to**  **his word** 
**versus the**  **victim's word** **.... " Id.**  **at 9-10.**  **The Commonwealth**  **further argued**  **that because**  **the I**  **prior adjudications**  **were not**  **sexually-related offenses,**  **they would**  **not in**  **any way**  **suggest to**  **the jury**  **that Appellant**  **had a**  **propensity to**  **commit crimes**  **of violence**  **or sexual**  **assaults. Id.**  **at 10.**  **As such,**  **there would**  **be very**  **little prejudicial**  **effect. Id.**  **Appellant argued**  **in reply**  **that there**  **was no**  **probative value**  **to the**  **adjudications because**  **they occurred**  **more than**  **ten years**  **ago, when**  **he was**  **under the**  **age of**  **18. (N.T.**  **� t**  **11). Counsel**  **further believed**  **this would**  **severely prejudice**  **Appellant ifhe**  **would testify,**  **ever though**  **counsel agreed**  **credibility would**  **be at**  **issue. Id.**  **Moreover, counsel**  **argued that**  **the prejudicial**  **effect of**  **this testimony**  **would outweigh**  **any probative**  **value. Id.** 

**2 In**  **their Notice,**  **the Commonwealth**  **also sought**  **to introduce**  **juvenile adjudi6ations**  **from February**  **11, 2008,**  **for the**  **offenses of**  **unsworn falsification**  **to authorities**  **and false**  **identification to**  **law enforcement authorities.**  **See Commonwealth's**  **Notice oflntent to**  **Introduce Evidenc�**  **of Crimen**  **Falsi Conviction**  **Where More**  **Than Ten**  **Years Has**  **Elapsed. The**  **sentences were**  **imposed on**  **March 3,**  **2008, at**  **which time**  **Appellant was**  **placed in**  **commitment for**  **a period**  **of six**  **months. Id.**  **Because Appellant**  **was released**  **from the**  **secure facility**  **within ten**  **years of** **the date**  **of trial,**  **the court**  **ruled that**  **these adjudications**  **were automatically**  **admissible pursuant**  **to Pa.R.E.**  **609. (N.T.**  **at 7-8).**  **Appellant has**  **not challenged**  **the admissibility**  **of these**  **juvenile adjudications**  **on appeal.**  

### 6**In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Randall,**  **528 A.2d**  **1326 (Pa.**  **1987), the**  **Supreme Court**  **identified I**  **five factors**  **the court**  **shall consider**  **in determining**  **whether the**  **value of**  **admittin$** 

### crimen**falsi convictions**  **more than**  **ten years**  **old substantially**  **outweighs its**  **prejudicial effect.**  

### Id. **at 1328-29.**  **Those factors**  **are: (1)**  **the degree**  **to which**  **the commission**  **of the**  **prior offense**  **reflects upon**  **the I**  **veracity of**  **the defendant-witness;**  **(2) the**  **likelihood, in**  **view of**  **the nature**  **and extent**  **of the**  **prior record, that**  **it would**  **have a**  **greater tendency**  **to smear**  **the character**  **of the**  **defendant and**  **suggest**
**a propensity**  **to commit**  **the crime**  **for which**  **he stands**  **charged, rather**  **than provide**  **a legitimate** 
**reason for**  **discrediting him**  **as an**  **untruthful person;**  **(3) the**  **age and**  **circumstance� of**  **the**

**I defendant;**  **(4) the**  **strength of**  **the prosecution's**  **case and**  **the prosecution's**  **need td**  **resort to**  **this evidence**  **as compared**  **with the**  **availability to**  **the defense**  **of other**  **witnesses throhgh**  **which its**  **version of**  **the events**  **surrounding the**  **incident can**  **be presented;**  **and (5)**  **the existence**  **of alternative**  **means of attacking**  **the defendant's**  **credibility.** 

### Id. **at 1328**  **( quoting**  

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Roots, **393 A.2d**  **364, 367**  **(Pa. 1978).**  **In** 

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Rivera, **983 A.2d**  **1211 (Pa.**  **2009), the**  **appellant, wμo**  **was twenty**  **six years**  **of age**  **at the**  **time of**  **his murder**  **trial, had**  **prior juvenile**  **adjudications for**  **robbery and**  **theft which**  **occurred thirteen**  **years prior**  **to trial,**  **when the**  **appellant was**  **only th** **, rteen**  **years old.**  

### Id. **at 1217-18.**  **The appellant**  **contended the**  **trial court**  **abused its**  **discretion by**  **denying his**  **I motion**  

### in **limine which**  **requested the**  **exclusion of**  **evidence of**  **his five**  **juvenile �** **djudications that**  **occurred more**  **than ten**  **years prior**  **to his**  **trial.** 

### Id. **at 1226.**  **After considering**  **the factors**  **identified in**  

### Randall, **supra, the**  **Supreme Court**  **disagreed, concluding**  **the trial**  **court acted**  **within its**  **discretion in**  **determining that**  **appellant's prior**  **juvenile adjudications**  **were more**  **probative than**  **prejudicial.** 

### Id. **at 1228.** 
**7 As**  **noted in**  

### Rivera, **the previous**  **adjudications of**  

### crimen**falsi offenses**  **were relevant**  **to**

**the jury's**  **determination of**  **the appellant's**  **credibility, which**  **was the**  **crux of**  **the case.**  **983 A.2d**  **at 1228.**  **The appellant's**  **juvenile adjudications**  **for theft**  **offenses did**  **not suggest**  **a propensity**  **to commit**  **murder.** 

### Id. **at 1229.**  **Additionally, "[w]hile**  **the age**  **of Appellant**  **at the**  **time the**  **offenses**
**were committed**  **may militate**  **against admission**  **of the**  **evidence, the**  **remaining factors,**  **namely the**  **prosecution's need**  **to resort**  **to this**  **evidence and**  **the lack**  **of alternative**  **means of**  **attacking Appellant's**  **credibility, clearly**  **favor admission."**  

### Id. **In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Hoover,**  **107 A.3d**  **723 (Pa.**  **2014), the**  **defendant filed a**  **motion** 

### in **limine seeking**  **to preclude**  **the Commonwealth**  **from impeaching**  **him with**  **evidence of**  **his fourteen-year**  **old** 

### crimen**falsi conviction,**  **which occurred**  **when he**  **was twenty-two**  **years of**  **age.** 

### Id. **at 725.**  **After balancing**  **the** 

### Randall **factors, the**  **trial court**  **denied the**  **motion.** 

### Id. **at 725-26.**  **On appeal,**  **the Superior**  **Court vacated**  **the judgment**  **of sentence**  **and remanded**  **for a**  **new trial**  **after finding**  **that the**  **commission of**  **a** 

### crimenfalsi **crime at**  **the age**  **of twenty-two**  **could not**  **be held**  **against the**  **defendant.** 

### Id. **at 727.**  **The Supreme**  **Court disagreed,**  **holding that**  **the Superior**  **Court "paid insufficient**  **deference to**  **the discretionary**  **decision of**  **the trial**  **court, and**  **is not**  **otherwise supported**  **by Pennsylvania**  **law."** 

### Id. **at 729.**  **The Supreme**  **Court then**  **rejected any**  **attempt to**  **discount a**  **prior conviction**  **for impeachment**  **purposes based**  **on the**  **youth of**  **the defendant**  **by stating,**  **"there is**  **no support**  **in Pennsylvania**  **law for**  **the proposition**  **that the**  **probative value of**  **a young**  **adult offender's**  **conviction 'is**  **small."'** 

### Id. **at 732.**  **In the**  **present case,**  **the trial**  **court conducted**  **an analysis**  **pursuant to·**  **the factors**  **identified in**  

### Randall **and determined**  **that the**  **prior adjudications**  **would reflect**  **upon the**  **veracity of**  **Appellant to**  **a substantial**  **degree, they**  **were less**  **likely to**  **smear Appellant's character**  **or suggest**  **8 a**  **propensity to**  **commit the**  **crimes for**  **which he**  **stood charged**  **because the**  **prior adjudications** 

**were not**  **related to**  **the charges**  **presently before**  **the court,**  **the Commonwealth**  **clearly articulated**  **the importance**  **of introducing**  **these** 

### crimen**falsi adjudications**  **because the**  **case would**  **boil down**  **to the**  **credibility of**  **witnesses, and**  **the Commonwealth**  **noted there**  **was no**  **alternative means**  **of i**  **attacking Appellant's**  **credibility. (N.T.**  **at 9-16).**  **The court**  **also noted**  **the similarities**  **between the**  **present case**  **and** 

### Rivera, **supra. Id.**  **at 15-16.**  **In both**  **cases, the**  **juvenile adjudications**  **occurred thirteen**  **years prior**  **to the**  **date of**  **trial, they**  **were relevant**  **to the**  **jury's determination**  **of credibility,**  **and they**  **did not**  **suggest a**  **propensity to**  **commit a**  **crime of**  **violence.** 

### Id. **Consistent with**  **the holdings**  **in** 

### Randall, Rivera, **and** 

### Hoover, **the trial**  **court properly**  **I concluded**  **that the**  **Commonwealth did**  **establish probative**  **value to**  **the admissibility**  **of Appellant's**  

### crimen**falsi juvenile**  **adjudications. (N.** **T. at**  **16). Furthermore,**  **the probative value**  **substantially outweighed any**  **prejudice.** 

### Id. **Therefore, the**  **court properly**  **ruled that**  **the prior**  **I adjudications**  **would be**  **admissible if**  **Appellant elected**  **to testify**  **at trial**  **I II.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not err**  **in denying**  **Appellant's assertion**  **that there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest in**  **his representation**  **at trial**  **by a**  **public defender,**  **where the**  **assertion was**  **not timely**  **made and**  **the PCRA**  **he had**  **previously filed**  **involved representation**  **by another**  **member of**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **in an**  **unrelated case.**  **Appellant essentially**  **argues the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying his**  **assertion :**  **that there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest in**  **his continued**  **representation at**  **trial by**  **a public**  **defender, because**  **he had** 

**. I**  **previously filed**  **a PCRA**  **petition involving**  **representation by**  **another member**  **of the**  **public defender's**  **office in**  **an earlier,**  **unrelated case.**  

### See **Statement. After**  **the jury**  **had been**  **empaneled and**  **the court**  **adjourned for**  **lunch, Appellant**  **made a**  **request for**  **a trial**  **continuance so**  **he could**  **hire private**  **counsel. (N.T.**  **at 100,**  **105-06). When**  **it**

**9 was**  **pointed out**  **that he**  **had over**  **one year**  **to obtain**  **private counsel,**  **Appellant responded**  **that he** 

**was only now**  **able to**  **afford private counsel, and**  **private counsel**  **would need**  **more time to prepare**  **for trial.**  **Id. at**  **105, 117.**  **In making**  **this request,**  **Appellant expressed**  **dissatisfaction with**  **current trial**  **counsel by**  **claiming that**  **counsel had**  **withheld exculpatory**  **discovery evidence**  **until just**  **recently, she**  **did not**  **meet with**  **him prior**  **to trial,**  **she did**  **not discuss**  **strategy with**  **him, and**  **she was**  **not prepared**  **to proceed.**  **Id. at**  **106-07. In**  **response, counsel**  **noted that**  **she entered**  **her appearance**  **approximately one**  **year prior**  **to trial,**  **and she**  **has represented**  **Appellant continuously since**  **then. (N.T.**  **at 111).**  **Counsel has**  **been speaking**  **with the**  **prosecutor for**  **several months**  **about the**  **case, she**  **has spoken**  **to Appellant**  **about the**  **case, she**  **reviewed discovery**  **with him,**  **she filed**  **motions on**  **Appellant's behalf,**  **and she**  **was fμlly prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial.**  **Id. at**  **109-12. Moreover,**  **Appellant was**  **just transported**  **to Lancaster**  **County Prison ("LCP")**  **from state**  **prison on**  **April 5,**  **2018, where he** 
**was incarcerated**  **over the**  **past seven months**  **on an**  **unrelated felony**  **drug conviction,**  **and counsel**  **made special**  **arrangements to**  **meet with**  **Appellant the**  **same day**  **he was**  **returned to**  **LCP. Id.**  **at 109,**  **127-28. Furthermore,**  **although it**  **is against**  **office policy**  **in sex**  **offense cases, counsel**  **gave Appellant**  **a copy**  **of the**  **discovery. Id.**  **at 1**  **10. The**  **Commonwealth objected**  **to a**  **continuance. (N.T.**  **at 116).**  **According to**  **the prosecutor,**  **eighteen witnesses**  **had already**  **been subpoenaed**  **and three**  **of those**  **witnesses were**  **traveling considerable**  **distances from**  **out of**  **town. Id.**  **The Commonwealth**  **was prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial.**  **Id. In**  **denying Appellant's**  **request for**  **a continuance,**  **the court**  **noted that**  **the offenses**  **occurred on**  **November 29,**  **2016, the**  **complaint was**  **filed on**  **February 17,**  **2017, the**  **case was**  **10 previously**  **continued by**  **Appellant on**  **at least**  **three occasions**  **over the**  **past year,**  **Appellant had** 

**more than**  **one year**  **to retain**  **private counsel,**  **both counsel**  **were prepared**  **to proceed**  **to trial,**  **and a**  **jury had**  **already been**  **empaneled. (N.T.**  **at 118-20).**  **3 After**  **the continuance**  **request was**  **denied, Appellant**  **stated there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest because**  **he and**  **counsel disagreed**  **on how**  **to proceed.**  **(N.T. at**  **120). Appellant**  **also claimed**  **that counsel**  **told him**  **not to**  **provide the**  **names of**  **any witnesses**  **because it**  **was not**  **n�cessary. Id.**  **In response,**  **counsel stated**  **an individual**  **contacted her**  **office just**  **yesterday claiming**  **he was**  **in Appellant's residence**  **on the**  **day in**  **question, and**  **he was**  **the one**  **who had**  **sexual relations with the**  **complainant. Id.**  **at 122.**  **However, the**  **Commonwealth noted**  **that testimony**  **i from**  **this witness**  **would be**  **refuted by**  **a recorded**  **telephone call**  **in which**  **Appellant is**  **heard stating**  **he was**  **home alone**  **with the**  **victim and**  **her sister**  **at the**  **time of**  **this incident.**  **Id. at**  **123-25. The**  **trial court**  **dismissed Appellant's**  **complaint and**  **asked whether**  **there:was anything**  **I else**  **to address,**  **at which**  **time Appellant**  **stated he**  **had already**  **filed a**  **PCRA. (N.T.**  **at 125).**  **When it**  **was pointed**  **out that**  **he had**  **not yet**  **been convicted**  **on these**  **charges, Appellant**  **stated it** 
**was for**  **his prior**  **felony drug**  **conviction. Id.**  **at 125-26.**  **According to**  **Appellant; he**  **filed a** 

**' PCRA**  **in that**  **case alleging**  **ineffective assistance**  **of Courtney**  **Monson, another**  **�ttomey in**  **the**

**3 The**  **grant or**  **denial of**  **a motion**  **for a**  **continuance is**  **within the**  **sound discretion**  **of the**  **trial court**  **and will**  **not be**  **reversed absent**  **an abuse**  **of discretion.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Brooks, 104**  **A. 3d**  **466, 469**  **(Pa. 2014).**  **In Brooks,**  **the Pennsylvania**  **Supreme Court**  **held that**  **the trial**  **court di!i**  **not abuse**  **its discretion**  **in denying**  **a continuance request**  **by a**  **defendant on**  **the day**  **of jury**  **selection: so**  **the defendant**  **could proceed**  **pro se.**  **Id. at**  **467. Moreover,**  **in Commonwealth**  **v. Harding,**  **369 A.2d**  **429 (Pa.**  **Super. 1976),**  **the trial**  **court properly denied**  **a defendant's**  **motion for**  **a continuance**  **so he**  **could obtain**  **private counsel**  **to replace**  **appointed counsel**  **where the**  **defendant was**  **not tried**  **until 11**  **months after**  **his arrest**  **and the**  **motion was**  **not made**  **until a**  **few days**  **before his**  **trial. Id.**  **at 430.**  **In Commonwealth**  **v. Randolph,**  **873 A.2d**  **1277 (Pa.**  **2005), the**  **trial court**  **acted within**  **its discretion**  **in a**  **capital-murder trial**  **in denying**  **a defendant's**  **request for**  **a continuance**  **to enable**  **private counsel**  **to represent**  **pim since**  **the case**  **had already**  **been continued**  **twice on**  **the defendant**  **and the**  **defendant waited**  **until two**  **!business days**  **before trial**  **was scheduled**  **to begin**  **to apprise**  **the trial**  **court of**  **his desire**  **for private**  **counsel. Id.**  **at 1282.**  **11 public**  **defender's office.**  

### Id. **As such,**  **Appellant stated,**  **"[i]t creates**  **conflict of**  **interest."** 

### Id. **at**

**126. The**  **court disagreed,**  **noting the**  **two cases**  **were unrelated.** 

### Id. **In his**  **Statement, Appellant**  **asserts the**  **court erred**  **in denying**  **his "objection"**  **to an**  **actual conflict**  **of interest.**  

### See **Statement. However, Appellant never**  **made a**  **specific objection to**  **the continued**  **representation of**  **trial counsel.**  **(N.T. at**  **125-26). Rather,**  **he suggested**  **there was**  **a conflict**  **of interest**  **only after**  **the jury**  **was empaneled.**  

### Id. **at 100,**  **126. Moreover,**  **trial counsel** 
**never objected**  **to continued**  **representation of**  **Appellant at**  **trial, nor**  **suggest there**  **was a**  **conflict of**  **interest.** 

### See, **Transcript, generally.**  **Because Appellant**  **never lodged**  **a specific**  **objection, and**  **he exercised**  **unreasonable delay**  **in raising**  **this issue, the**  **matter should**  **be deemed waived.**  

### See **Commonwealth v.**  

### Tucker, **143 A.3d**  **955, 961**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2016) (failure**  **to make**  **timely and specific objection**  **at appropriate**  **stage of**  **the proceedings**  **will result**  **in waiver**  **of the**  **issue). Assuming,**  

### arguendo, **the issue**  **is not**  **waived, there**  **was no**  **conflict of**  **interest because**  **trial counsel**  **represented Appellant in**  **a case**  **that was**  **completely unrelated**  **to a**  **separate case**  **in which**  **Appellant alleged that**  **another public**  **defender provided**  **ineffective assistance**  **of counsel.**  **Rule 1.** **7 of**  **the Pennsylvania**  **Rules of**  **Professional Conduct**  **states that**  **a lawyer**  **shall not**  **represent a**  **client if**  **the representation**  **of one**  **client will**  **be directly**  **adverse to**  **another client, or**  **if there**  **is a**  **significant risk**  **that the**  **representation of**  **one or**  **more clients**  **will be**  **materially limited**  **by the**  **lawyer's responsibility**  **to another**  **client, a**  **former client**  **or a**  **third person,**  **or by**  **a personal**  **interest of**  **the lawyer.**  

### Id. **As such,**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **may not**  **represent co-defendants.**  

### Commonwealth **v.** 

### Westbrook, **400 A.2d**  **160, 162-63**  **(Pa. 1979).**  **Moreover, a**  **post-conviction petitioner**  **who has**  **claimed ineffective**  **assistance of**  **the public**  **defender who**  **served as**  **trial or**  **appellate counsel**  **may not**  **be represented**  **in such**  **a post**  **12 conviction**  **proceeding by**  **the public**  **defender's office.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Patrick, 383**  **A.2d 935,** 

**936 (Pa.**  **1978). The**  **law will not_ assume that**  **counsel has**  **advised his**  **client of**  **his inadequacies** 
**or those**  **of his**  **associates. Commonwealth**  **v. Via,**  **316 A.2d**  **895, 898**  **(Pa. 1974).**  **However, a**  **lawyer associated**  **in a**  **firm is**  **not prohibited**  **from representing**  **a client**  **whom**
**an associate**  **is prohibited**  **from representing**  **where the**  **prohibition is**  **based on**  **a personal**  **interest of**  **the prohibited**  **lawyer and**  **does not**  **present a**  **significant risk**  **of materially**  **limiting the**  **representation of**  **the client**  **by the remaining**  **lawyers in**  **the firm.**  **See Pennsylvania**  **Rule of**  **Professional Conduct**  **(1.10). In**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Sawyer, 454**  **A.2d I**  **088 (Pa.**  **Super. 1982),**  **the appellant**  **likewise alleged**  **it was**  **a conflict**  **of interest**  **for the**  **public defender's**  **office to**  **represent him**  **at trial,** 

**where he**  **was previously**  **represented by**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **on an**  **unrelated charge**  **in which**  **the appellant**  **subsequently alleged**  **ineffective assistance**  **of counsel**  **on appeal,**  **and that**  **appeal was**  **pending at**  **the time**  **of the**  **instant trial.**  **Id. at**  **I 091.**  **The Superior**  **Court disagreed,** **finding there**  **was no**  **actual conflict**  **of interest.**  **Id. Thus,**  **although the**  **public defender**  **who represented**  **Appellant in**  **the prior**  **criminal case**  **would be**  **_prohibited from**  **representing Appellant on**  **the present**  **charges because**  **Appellant was**  **alleging in**  **a post-conviction**  **proceeding that**  **former counsel**  **was ineffective,** **the personal**  **interest of**  **the prohibited**  **lawyer in**  **that case**  **did not**  **present a**  **significant risk**  **of materially**  **limiting the**  **representation of**  **Appellant by**  **the remaining**  **lawyers of**  **the public**  **defender's office**  **in this**  **completely unrelated**  **case. Therefore, Appellant's assertion**  **in this**  **regard is**  **without merit.** **4**

**4 It**  **should be**  **noted that**  **trial counsel**  **was extremely**  **vigorous in**  **representing Appellant.**  **Counsel f**  **i led**  **pretrial motions**  **seeking to**  **pierce the**  **Rape Shield**  **Law and**  **preclude admission**  **of Appellant**  **' s**  **prior crimenfalsi**  **adjudications. Counsel**  **also forcefully**  **advocated on**  **Appellant's behalf**  **during the**  **trial. To**  **that end,**  **counsel obtained**  **acquittals on**  **the two**  **most serious charges**  **of rape**  **and sexual**  **assault. 13** **III. The**  **trial court**  **did not**  **err in**  **denying Appellant's**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment** 

**evidence on**  **the grounds**  **of the**  **rape shield**  **law. Appellant**  **claims the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **denying his**  **motion to**  **admit impeachment**  **evidence on**  **the grounds**  **of the**  **Rape Shield**  **law. See**  **Statement. 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104, Evidence**  **of victim's**  **sexual conduct,**  **provides: (a)**  **General rule.-Evidence**  **of specific**  **instances of**  **the alleged**  **victim's pa�t**  **sexual conduct,**  **opinion evidence**  **of the**  **alleged victim's**  **past sexual**  **conduct, and**  **rJputation evidence**  **of the**  **alleged victim's**  **past sexual**  **conduct shall**  **not be**  **admi_�sible 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.**  **(b) Evidentiary**  **proceedings.-A defendant**  **who proposes**  **to offer**  **evidence of**  **the alleged**  **victim's past**  **sexual conduct**  **pursuant to**  **subsection (a)**  **shall file**  **a written**  **motion and**  **offer of**  **proof at**  **the time**  **of trial.**  **If, at**  **the time**  **of trial,**  **the court**  **determines that**  **the motion**  **and offer**  **of proof**  **are sufficient**  **on their**  **faces, the**  **court shall**  **order an**  **in camera**  **hearing and**  **shall make**  **findings on**  **the record**  **as to**  **the relevance**  **and admissibility**  **of the**  **proposed evidence**  **pursuant to**  **the standards**  **set forth**  **in subsection**  **(a). 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104. Prior**  **to trial,**  **Appellant timely**  **filed a**  **motion seeking**  **to admit**  **DNA evid** **� nce**  **which would**  **show that**  **there were**  **three DNA**  **profiles of**  **at least**  **three individuals**  **on thJ**  **sperm fraction**  **from the**  **crotch area**  **of the**  **victim's underwear**  **who did**  **not match**  **the DNA**  **profile of**  **Appellant. See**  **Defendant's Motion**  **to Admit**  **Evidence Related**  **to 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3104. According**  **to Appellant,**  **this would be**  **offered to "establish**  **the consensual**  **nature of**  **this encounter**  **and to**  **negate the**  **element of**  **forced penetration**  **regarding the**  **rape charge."**  **Id.; (N.T.**  **at 18-19).**  **The Commonwealth**  **filed a**  **motion seeking**  **to preclude**  **any reference**  **by Appellant**  **to the**  **victim's sexual**  **activity with**  **other individuals,**  **because introduction**  **of such**  **evidence would**  **be presented**  **merely to**  **sully the**  **reputation and**  **chastity of**  **the victim.**  **See Motion**  **in Limine.** 
**14 During**  **a pre-trial**  **hearing, Appellant**  **argued this**  **evidence was**  **also relevant**  **because it** 

**would go**  **to the**  **credibility of**  **the victim. (N.T.**  **at 19).**  **Appellant then**  **sought to**  **submit an**  **ex parte**  **motion which**  **would call**  **into question**  **the veracity**  **of the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 20.**  **5 According to**  **the motion,**  **the victim**  **responded to**  **a Forensic**  **Services Sexual**  **Assault Information**  **Sheet on**  **December 3,**  **2016, stating**  **she had**  **not had**  **intercourse within**  **two weeks**  **of the**  **alleged assault.**  

### See **Defendant's Ex**  **Parte Motion**  **to Admit**  **Impeachment Evidence.**  **After the**  **DNA results**  **revealed unidentified**  **male DNA**  **profiles, the**  **victim indicated**  **that approximately**  **two weeks**  **prior to**  **the alleged**  **rape she**  **was in**  **New York**  **City and**  **had engaged**  **in sexual**  **intercourse. Id.**  **Appellant claimed**  **this response**  **was "in**  **total contradiction"**  **to the**  **previous answer**  **the victim**  **gave on**  **the sexual**  **assault information**  **sheet, and**  **it should**  **be admissible**  **to impeach**  **the victim**  **and her**  **credibility. Id.**  **In response,**  **the prosecutor stated**  **that the**  **DNA analyst**  **would acknowledge**  **Appellant's DNA**  **profile was**  **not found**  **in the**  **vaginal swabs,**  **which itself**  **could negate**  **the vi** **f tim's**  **assertion that**  **Appellant had**  **sexual contact.**  **(N.T. at**  **36). 6**  **Furthermore, sexual**  **relations with**  **another person**  **had no**  **bearing on**  **the victim's**  **credibility, or**  **whether she**  **was raped**  **by Appellant.**  **Id. at**  **37. Additionally,**  **Appellant was**  **recorded the**  **weekend before**  **trial admitting**  **to h.is**  **mother that**  **he did**  **have sex**  **with the**  **victim. Id.**  **at 42-43.**  **Moreover, Appellant's**  **profile was**  **found in**  **a non**  **sperm fraction**  **taken from**  **the crotch**  **of the**  **victim's underwear,**  **which would**  **sug�est there**  **was**

**5 Because**  **the information**  **contained in**  **the ex**  **parte motion**  **was provided**  **to Appellant**  **by the**  **Commonwealth in**  **discovery, the**  **court declined**  **to rule**  **on the**  **motion in**  **an ex**  **parte fashion**  **without giving**  **the Commonwealth**  **an opportunity**  **to respond.**  **(N.T. at**  **21-24, 44-45).** 

**6 Patrice**  **Ferlan ("Ferlan"),**  **a forensic**  **DNA scientist**  **with the**  **Pennsylvania State**  **Police ("PSP"),**  **later testified**  **that Appellant's**  **DNA was**  **not present**  **in the**  **sperm fraction**  **of the**  **external genitalia**  **sample or**  **the sperm**  **fraction of**  **the crotch**  **area of**  **the underwear.**  **(N.T. at**  **387, 399).**  

### 15**some sort**  **of contact**  **between Appellant**  **and the**  **crotch of**  **the victim's**  **underwear. Id.**  **at 38.**  **7 As** 

**such, this**  **was not**  **a case**  **of misidentification.**  **Id. at**  **42. '**  **Regarding Appellant's**  **original motion,**  **the court**  **questioned how**  **the DN1**  **profile of**  **another person**  **would establish**  **the consensual**  **nature of**  **this encounter, negate**  **th �**  **element of**  **forced penetration regarding**  **the rape**  **charge, or**  **disprove the**  **allegations against Appellant. (N.T.**  **I at**  **20, 26,**  **30). Regarding**  **Appellant's ex**  **parte motion,**  **the court**  **questioned whether**  **the evidence**  **actually showed**  **that the**  **victim was**  **untruthful. Id.**  **at 47,**  **49-50. On**  **the information**  **sheet, the**  **victim stated**  **she did**  **not have**  **sexual intercourse**  **within the**  **past two**  **weeks. Id.**  **at 47**  **(emphasis added).**  **When confronted**  **with the**  **DNA results,**  **the victim**  **did not**  **recant or**  **admit she**  **had sexual**  **intercourse within two**  **weeks, but**  **rather stated**  **she engaged**  **in sexual**  **inter p** **ourse approximately**  **two weeks**  **prior. Id.**  **Furthermore, the**  **DNA expert**  **would not**  **be able**  **to establish**  **when the**  **victim would have**  **had intercourse**  **with another**  **individual, or**  **when the**  **DNA**
**source would have been placed**  **in the**  **underwear. Id.**  **at 28-30.**  **After reviewing**  **legal authority,**  **the court**  **weighed the**  **limited probative**  **value of**  **admitting DNA**  **evidence to**  **show the**  **victim had**  **sexual relations with someone o(her than**  **Appellant against**  **the clear prejudice of**  **impugning the**  **morality and**  **integrity of the**  **victim by**  **doing so,**  **and the**  **court found**  **that the**  **prejudice outweighed any**  **probative value. (N.T. at**  **31-36, 40-42,**  **52-53). Therefore,**  **the evidence**  **was precluded.**  **Id. at**  **53.**
**I "The**  **purpose of**  **the Rape**  **Shield Law**  **is to**  **prevent a**  **trial from**  **shifting its**  **focus from**  **the**
**i culpability**  **of the**  **accused toward**  **the virtue**  **and chastity**  **of the**  **victim. The**  **Rape Shield**  **Law is** 

**7 The**  **DNA expert**  **testified that**  **Appellant's DNA**  **profile was**  **found on**  **the Y**  **chromosome DNA**  **profile of**  **a non-sperm**  **fraction of**  **the crotch**  **area of**  **the victim's underwear,**  **in a**  **mixture l**  **which showed**  **two different**  **people. (N.T.**  **at 387,**  **401-02). 16** **intended to**  **exclude irrelevant**  **and abusive**  **inquiries regarding**  **prior sexual**  **conduct of**  **sexual**

**assault complainants."**  

### Commonwealth **v. Burns,**  **988 A.2d**  **684, 689**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2009) (footnotes**  **and citations**  **omitted). "[T]he**  **Rape Shield**  **law will**  **bow to**  **a defendant's**  **right to**  **confront and**  **cross-examine when**  **a specific**  **proffer demonstrates**  **that the**  **proposed inquiry**  **is intended**  **to elicit**  **relevant evidence, which**  **is more**  **probative than**  **prejudicial, and**  **which is**  **not cumulative**  **of other**  **evidence available without**  **encroaching upon**  **Rape Shield**  **law protections."**  

### Commonwealth **v. Nieves,**  **582 A.2d**  **341, 34** **7 (Pa.**  **Super. 1990).**  **In** 

### Nieves, **the Superior**  **Court found**  **that such evidence**  **was inadmissible**  **where it**  **merely provided**  **an alternate source**  **for evidence**  **of sexual**  **abuse without precluding**  **the appellant's**  **guilt.** 

### Id. **at 349.**  **In_** 

### Commonwealth **v. Burns,**  **988 A.2d**  **684 (Pa.**  **Super. 2009),**  **the Superior**  **Court noted**  **that the**  **Rape Shield**  **law is**  **inapplicable if**  **the evidence**  **(1) negates**  **directly the**  **act of**  **intercourse with**  **which a**  **defendant is**  **charged; (2)**  **demonstrates a**  **witness' bias**  **or attacks**  **that credibility;**  **or (3)**  **tends to**  **directly exculpate**  **the accused**  **by showing**  **that the**  **alleged victim**  **is biased**  **and thus**  **has a**  **motive to**  **lie, fabricate,**  **or seek**  **retribution via**  **prosecution.** 

### Id. **at 690.**  **In** 

### Burns, **the Court**  **found that**  **DNA located**  **on the**  **victim's shorts**  **which did**  **not match**  **the defendant's**  **DNA was**  **inadmissible, because**  **any evidence**  **that the**  **victim engaged**  **in sexual**  **activity with**  **another person**  **did not**  **negate the**  **sexual assault**  **by the**  **defendant.** 

### Id. **at 692-93.**  **In** 

### Commonwealth **v. Cramer,**  **_ A.3d**  **_, 2018**  **WL 4232479**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2018), the**  **defendant admitted**  **he and**  **the victim**  **engaged in**  **sexual activity**  **but claimed**  **it was**  **consensual.** 

### Id. **at** ***4-5. Citing**  **the Rape**  **Shield law,**  **the trial**  **court precluded**  **a DNA**  **expert from**  **testifying about**  **forensic results**  **which showed**  **three contributors**  **of sperm**  **on the**  **victim's underwear.**  

### Id. **at** ***4. The**  **Superior Court**  **affirmed, stating,**  **"Appellant's argument**  **that the**  **DNA evidence**  **was 17** **relevant to**  **show that**  **the Victim**  **engaged in**  **sexual relations**  **with other**  **individuals is**  **irrelevant to** 



## . **I i**  **the issue**  **of whether**  **the Victim**  **consented to**  **having sex**  **with Appellant."**  **Id. at**  ***:5.**
**' '**  **' I**  **The defendant**  **in Cramer**  **further argued**  **the testimony**  **was relevant**  **to "show**  **that the**  **I I**  **Complainant lied**  **to the**  **hospital staff**  **in two**  **questionnaires that**  **the Victim**  **completed, where**  **she I**  **' answered**  **that she**  **had not**  **had sexual**  **intercourse with**  **anyone in**  **either the**  **past fi�e**  **days or**  **two**

**. I**  **I weeks."**  **Cramer, 2018**  **WL 4232479,**  **at** ***6. According**  **to the**  **defendant, the**  **DNlt\. forensic**  

## I **expert could**  **testify that**  **based on**  **his analysis**  **of the**  **underpants, the**  **victim had**  **s�xual intercourse** 

**. '**  **seven to**  **ten days**  **ago with**  **her ex-boyfriend**  **and thus,**  **the victim**  **lied on**  **the questionnaires.**  **Id.** 

## I
**I The**  **Superior Court**  **disagreed, finding**  **that impeaching**  **the victim**  **through the**  **DNA expert**  **in relation**  **to the**  **victim's answers**  **on the**  **questionnaires would**  **also have**  **been irrelevant.**  **Id.** 

## I **The instant**  **case is**  **very similar**  **to Cramer.**  **Both defendants**  **admitted en** **� aging**  **in sexual**  **activity with**  **the victims.**  **Both claimed**  **the victims**  **consented. The**  **proffered testimony**  **in both**  **I '**  **cases was**  **from a**  **DNA analyst**  **about testing**  **which showed**  **three contributors**  **of kperm**  **on the**  **I i**  **victims' underwear.**  **The defendants**  **in both**  **cases argued**  **that DNA**  **testimony w�s**  **relevant to** 

**' I**  **show that**  **the victims**  **lied when**  **they originally**  **stated they**  **did not**  **have sexual**  **intercourse with**  **anyone in**  **the recent**  **past. In**  **both cases, evidence**  **of the**  **victim's sexual**  **conductlwith other**  **� persons**  **was of**  **little relevance**  **to the**  **issue of**  **consent, and**  **impeaching the**  **victim;s through**  **a I**  **I DNA**  **expert about**  **answers they**  **gave in**  **earlier statements**  **would have**  **been irrel6vant.**  

### ! **When reviewing**  **whether the**  **trial court**  **properly found**  **that the**  **Rape Shield**  **law !**  **precluded evidence**  **of the**  **victim's prior**  **sexual activity,**  **the Superior**  **Court's standard**  **of review**  **I I**  **is to**  **determine whether**  **the trial**  **court committed**  **an abuse**  **of discretion.**  **Cramefi, 2018**  **WL I**  **� I**  **4232479, at**  ***5. Because**  **there was**  **no abuse**  **of discretion**  **in this**  **case, the**  **claim hmst**  **fail.**
**18 IV.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not err**  **in determining**  **that testimony**  **from two**  **Commonwealth**

**witnesses, whom**  **the victim**  **spoke to**  **after the**  **alleged assault,**  **constituted prior**  **consistent statements.**  **Appellant next**  **claims the**  **trial court**  **erred in**  **determining that**  **testimony fr** **om two**  **Commonwealth witnesses,**  **whom the**  **victim spoke to**  **after the**  **assault, constituted prior consistent**  **statements. See**  **Statement. Relevant sections of**  **Pennsylvania Rule**  **of Evidence**  **613 (Witness's**  **Prior Consistent**  **Statement to**  **Rehabilitate), read**  **as follows:**  **( c)**  **Witness's Prior**  **Consistent Statement**  **to Rehabilitate.**  **Evidence of**  **a witness's**  **prior consistent**  **statement is**  **admissible to**  **rehabilitate the**  **witness's credibility**  **if the**  **opposing party**  **is given**  **an opportunity**  **to cross-examine**  **the witness**  **about the**  **statement and**  **the statement**  **is offered to**  **rebut an**  **express or**  **implied charge**  **of: (**  **1) fabrication,**  **bias, improper**  **influence or**  **motive, or**  **faulty memory**  **and the**  **statement was**  **made before**  **that which**  **has been**  **charged existed**  **or arose;**  **or (2)**  **having made a**  **prior inconsistent**  **statement, which**  **the witness**  **has denied**  **or explained,**  **and the**  **consistent statement supports**  **the witness's,**  **denial or**  **explanation. Pa.RE.**  **613(c). When**  **a witness's**  **testimony is**  **challenged as**  **the product**  **of inaccurate**  **memory or**  **faulty recollection,**  **a consistent**  **statement made by**  **the witness**  **prior to**  **the time**  **of the**  **charged faulty**  **memory is**  **admissible in**  **response to**  **the attack.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Smith, 586**  **A'.2d 957,**  **963-64 (Pa.**  **Super. 1991).**  **Where counsel**  **cross-examines a**  **witness as**  **to their**  **ability t** **o1 recall**  **events due**  **to high**  **alcohol consumption,**  **prior consistent**  **statements are**  **admissible. Comm** **� nwealth**  **v. Paolello,**  **665 A.2d**  **439, 452-53 (Pa. 1995). If**  **a witness**  **explains an**  **inconsistent statement**  **introduced by**  **the cross-examiner,**  **a consistent**  **statement supporting**  **the witness's**  **explanation is**  **admissible. Commonwealth**  **v. Harris,**  **852 A.2d**  **1168, 1176**  **(Pa. 2004).**  **Furthdr, prior**  **consistent statements**  **are admissible**  **to refute**  **a charge**  **of fabrication**  **if the**  **prior consistent** **1 statement**  **was made**  **before the**  **motive to**  **lie existed.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Busanet, 54**  **A.3d 35,**  **53 (Pa.**  **2012). I**  **19 In**  **her opening**  **statement to**  **the jury,**  **Appellant's counsel**  **immediately attacked**  **the**

**victim's credibility**  **by stating:**  **the only**  **reason that**  **we're here**  **today is**  **because [the**  **victim] was**  **caught having**  **sex with**  **my client,**  **Manuel. That's**  **the only**  **reason why**  **we're here**  **today.! She**  **got caught.**  **Plain and**  **simple. This**  **was someone**  **that her**  **sister was**  **trying to**  **establish a**  **relationship with.**  **[The prosecutor]**  **told you**  **that. And**  **rather than**  **just tell**  **the truth**  **and deal**  **with those**  **consequences, she**  **decided to**  **lie about**  **it. She**  **decided to**  **lie about**  **it rather**  **than coming**  **clean. (N.T.**  **at 162-63).**  **Counsel claimed**  **the sex**  **was consensual.**  **Id. at**  **168. During**  **cross­ !**  **examination, counsel**  **questioned the**  **victim about**  **her alcohol**  **consumption and**  **lack of**  **memory. Id.**  **at 267-68,**  **273, 276.**  **Counsel very**  **aggressively questioned**  **the victim**  **about a**  **prior statement**  **she gave**  **to police,**  **which the**  **victim explained**  **was in**  **some respects**  **not true**  **or ihconsistent**  **with her**  **trial testimony.**  **Id. at**  **269-73. Counsel**  **challenged the**  **victim's credibility**  **by confronting**  **her with**  **the preliminary**  **hearing transcript.**  **Id. at**  **276-79, 281-85.**  **Counsel also**  **cha**
**, llenged**  **the victim's**  **version of**  **events by**  **pointing out**  **the lack**  **of injuries**  **or tom**  **clothing.** 

## Ia. **at 288-92.**  **On re-direct**  **examination, when**  **the prosecutor**  **asked the**  **victim to**  **explain her**  **prior statement**  **to police**  **and testimony**  **from the**  **preliminary hearing,**  **the following**  **occurred: PROSECUTOR:** 

**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:**  **VICTIM: You**  **[sic] asked**  **a lot**  **of questions**  **about things**  **before and** 

**after the**  **assault and**  **who you**  **said what**  **to when. Your**  **testimony here**  **today was**  **you woke**  **up, he**  **was on**  **top of** **you, he**  **pulled your**  **pants down**  **and penetrated**  **you with**  **his penis,**  **correct? Correct.**  **And you**  **didn't consent**  **to that?**  **No, I didn't.**  **You didn't**  **say it**  **was all**  **right? No.**  **Have you**  **ever told**  **this version**  **-- that**  **what you**  **just testified**  **to of**  **that incident**  **any differently?**  **No.**



### 20**PROSECUTOR:**

**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:** 
**VICTIM: PROSECUTOR:** 
**VICTIM: (N.T.**  **at 296-98).**  **Okay. So**  **when you**  **told the**  **detective, initial**  **detecti've, about**  **how the**  **driving situation**  **was, did**  **that in**  **any way**  **impact the**  **fact that**  **you were**  **raped? No.**  **1 And**  **whether you**  **had one**  **drink or**  **three drinks**  **at the**  **club, did**  **that have**  **any impact**  **on the**  **fact that**  **you were**  **sexually assaulted**  **and how**  **it was**  **done? No.**  **I still**  **remember everything.**  **When --**  **whether you**  **ran out**  **of the**  **home immediately**  **after being**  **raped or**  **you ran**  **upstairs and**  **got your**  **b�longings, again,**  **does it**  **change how**  **you were**  **raped that**  **day? No.** 

**After the**  **victim testified,**  **Appellant sought**  **to preclude**  **proffered testimony**  **from the**  **victim's mother**  **and friend,**  **by claiming**  **their testimony**  **would only**  **serve to**  **bolster the**  **victim's credibility,**  **a prompt**  **complaint had**  **already been**  **established, and**  **the testimony**  

### bf **the friend**  **would be**  **hearsay because**  **the victim**  **had already**  **testified about**  **their conversation.** **(N.T. at**  **324- 25).**  **8 The**  **prosecutor replied**  **that the**  **testimony would**  **be admissible**  **as evidence**  **of a**  **prompt**



### . **I complaint,**  **or as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement because**  **the victim**  **had been**  **"impeached to**  **a great I**  **degree**
**... "**  **Id. at**  **325-26. Appellant's**  **counsel initially**  **agreed that**  **she had**  **atta�ked the**  **victim's credibility,**  **before recanting**  **and stating**  **"I did**  **not - -**  **as to**  **the events**  **that she**  **ha�**

**- - as**  **to, I**  **guess, her**  **rape allegations,**  **her aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **allegations, I**  **have not**  **attacked her**  **I credibility**  **on, I**  **believe, either**  **one of**  **them, as**  **to her**  **version of**  **the events."**  **Id. at**  **327-28. I**  **The court**  **noted that**  **counsel had**  **clearly attacked**  **the victim's**  **credibility by**  **calling the**  **victim a**  **liar in**  **her opening**  **statement, claiming**  **the sexual**  **conduct was**  **consensual, and** 

**8 During**  **the victim's**  **re-direct examination,**  **the prosecutor**  **presented as**  **a pri9r**  **consistent statement**  **text messages**  **about the**  **assault that**  **were exchanged**  **between the**  **victim and**  **her sister.**  **(N.T. at**  **299-305). Appellant**  **did not**  **object to**  **this testimony**  **being offered**  **as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement. Id.**  **I 21** **challenging the**  **victim's credibility**  **on cross-examination**  **of the**  **victim. (N.T.**  **at 326-29).** 

**Therefore, the**  **court ruled**  **that the**  **witnesses would**  **be permitted**  **to testify**  **about prior**  **consistent statements.**  **Id. at**  **328-29. Appellant**  **took exception**  **to the**  **ruling. Id.**  **at 329.**  **C6unsel also**  **made I**  **a blanket**  **objection immediately**  **prior to**  **the testimony**  **of the**  **friend. Id.**  **at 341.**  **9 Appellant**  **clearly accused**  **the victim**  **of fabrication**  **and/or faulty**  **memory, while**  **questioning the**  **victim's ability**  **to recall**  **events due**  **to high**  **alcohol consumption.:**  **Counsel also**  **introduced prior**  **inconsistent statements made**  **by the**  **victim. Therefore,**  **the priot**  **consistent statements**  **were properly**  **admitted to**  **rehabilitate the**  **victim by**  **rebutting the**  **charge of**  **fabrication**
**or faulty**  **memory, and**  **to support**  **the victim's**  **explanation of**  **the prior**  **inconsistent statements.**  **Assuming, arguendo,**  **the evidence**  **was not**  **admissible as**  **a prior**  **consistent statement,**  **the Superior**  **Court can**  **affirm the**  **court's decision**  **"if there**  **is any**  **basis to**  **support it,**  **even if**  **we rely** 
**on different**  **grounds to**  **affirm." Commonwealth**  **v. Williams,**  **35 A.3d**  **44, 47**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2011). i**  **Evidence of**  **a complaint**  **of sexual**  **assault, independent**  **of its**  **potential admissibility**  **as a**  **prior consistent**  **statement, is**  **admissible to**  **prove a**  **complaint was**  **made and**  **to identify**  **the specific**  **incident with**  **the offense**  **charged. Commonwealth**  **v. Snoke,**  **580 A.2d**  **295, 300**  **(Pa. 1990).**  **In the**  **present case,**  **testimony established that**  **the victim**  **and Kaitlyn**  **left!Appellant's residence**  **immediately after**  **the sexual**  **assault and**  **got into**  **their car,**  **at which**  **time Appellant** 

**9 The**  **sole basis**  **for Appellant's**  **objection to**  **admissibility of**  **the prior**  **consistebt statements**  **was an**  **assertion that**  **counsel did**  **not attack**  **the credibility**  **of the**  **victim. Appellant**  **should not**  **be permitted**  **to advance**  **any other**  **reason on**  **appeal. See**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Cline, 177**  **A.3d 922,**  **927 (Pa.**  **Super. 2017)**  **( a new**  **and different**  **theory of**  **relief may**  **not be**  **successfully advanced**  **for the**  **first time**  **on appeal);**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Cole, 167**  **A.3d 49,**  **64 (Pa.**  **Super. 2017)**  **(defendant waived**  **claims where**  **objection at**  **trial made**  **no mention**  **of the**  **specific objection**  **the defendant**  **is raising**  **on appeal);**  **Commonwealth v.**  **McGriff, 160**  **A.3d 863, 871 (Pa. Super.**  **2017) (if counsel**  **states the**  **grounds for**  **an objection,**  **then all**  **other unspecified grounds**  **are waived**  **and cannot**  **be raised**  **for the**  **first time**  **on appealf**  **22 '** 

**came outside**  **and tried**  **to get**  **them to**  **stay. Still**  **images from**  **a safety**  **coalition video**  **taken at**  

## I **7:23 a.m.**  **and 7:32**  **a.m. showed**  **Appellant standing**  **at the front**  **of the**  **victim's cat**  **leaning into** 



## - **I the**  **driver's window.**  **The victim's**  **car then**  **left the**  **scene at**  **around 7:56**  **a.m. /** 

**I While**  **Appellant was**  **at the**  **car, the**  **victim was**  **crying and**  **talking on**  **the phone**  **with !**  **I Hatchel.**  **When they**  **left Appellant's**  **residence, the**  **victim drove**  **to Hatchel's**  **house and**  **arrived** 

## i **there between**  **9:00 a.m.**  **and 9:30**  **a.m. that**  **morning. The**  **victim promptly**  **told H�tchel**  **that she**  **I I**  **I was**  **asleep on**  **a couch**  **and when**  **she awoke**  **a male**  **was on**  **top of**  **her. The**  **victim related**  **that she**  

### ! **kept telling**  **him "no"**  **and tried**  **to push**  **him off,**  **but the**  **male "stuck**  **it in**  **her." Tlie**  **victim was**  **I I**  **I crying**  **hysterically when**  **she told**  **Hatchel what**  **happened. After**  **that, the**  **victim �ent**  **home and**  

### told **her mother.**  **' 0**  

### i **Testimony of**  **a prompt**  **complaint is**  **competent evidence**  **when limited**  **to 1e**  **stablish that**  **a complaint**  **was made**  **and to**  **identify the**  **occurrence complained**  **of with**  **the offenke**  **charged.** 

## I **Commonwealth v.**  **Freeman, 441**  **A.2d 1327,**  **1331 (Pa.**  **Super. 1982).**  **There is**  **a presumption**  **that** 

## I **a victim**  **has not**  **had time**  **to fabricate**  **if a**  **prompt complaint**  **is made,**  **and the**  **vic�im's story**  **is** 

## I **given more**  **credibility.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Thomas,**  **904 A.2d**  **964, 970**  **(Pa. Sup�r.**  **2006). In**  

## I **Freeman, testimony**  **by the**  **victim's sister-in-law**  **confirming that**  **the victim**  **rela�ed the**  **incident** 

## I **to her**  **immediately following**  **its occurrence**  **was admissible**  **to show**  **prompt complaint.**  **441** 

## I **A.2d at**  **1332. Thus,**  **the testimony**  **in this**  **case would**  **be admissible**  **as a**  **prompt r** **omplaint. Furthermore,**  **an erroneous**  **ruling on an**  **evidentiary issue**  **does not**  **automatically entitle**  **a**



## . **I defendant**  **to relief**  **where the**  **error was**  **harmless.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Yockey,**  **158 A.3d**  **1246,**

**10 In**  **addition to**  **prom p** **t complaint** **, the**  **prosecutor ar** **g ued**  **that this**  **testimon y**  **would also**  **be admissible**  **as an**  **excited utterance**  **or present**  **sense impression.**  **(N .T.**  **at 326).**  

## I **23 1254**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2017). Not**  **all errors**  **at trial**  **entitle an**  **appellant to**  **a new**  **trial, and**  **the harmless**  **i error**  **doctrine reflects**  **the reality**  **that an**  **accused is**  **entitled to**  **a fair**  **trial but**  **not a:**  **perfect trial.**  

### Commonwealth **v. Green,**  **162 A.3d**  **509, 519**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2017). An**  **error may**  **be harmless**  **if the**  **properly admitted**  **evidence of**  **guilt is**  **so overwhelming**  **and the**  **prejudicial effectl**  **so insignificant** 

**I by**  **comparison that**  **it is**  **clear beyond**  **a reasonable**  **doubt the**  **error could**  **not have**  **contributed to**  **the verdict.**  

### Commonwealth **v. Stetler,**  **95 A.3d**  **864, 890**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2014). Presently,** 

**the properly**  **admitted evidence**  **of guilt**  **was overwhelming.**  **Video surveillance**  **showed the**  **victim arriving**  **at Appellant's**  **residence. The**  **victim testified**  **that Appellant**  **put his**  **fingers into**  **her vagina**  **without her**  **consent in**  **the bedroom**  **and used**  **force to**  **sex �** **ally assault**  **her downstairs.**  **The victim's**  **sister saw**  **Appellant's hand**  **move towards**  **the victim**  **while they**  **were upstairs**  **in bed,** **went downstairs**  **to find**  **Appellant on**  **top of**  **the victim,** **and heard**  **her sister** 
**scream for**  **help while**  **trying to**  **push Appellant**  **off of**  **her. Appellant's**  **DNA profile**  **was found**  **on the**  **non-sperm fraction**  **of DNA**  **taken from**  **the victim's underwear. Appellant a�mitted**  **he inserted**  **his fingers**  **into the**  **victim's vagina while**  **they were**  **upstairs in**  **bed and**  **again on**  **the couch**  **downstairs. Furthermore,**  **Appellant sent**  **the victim's**  **sister a**  **text message**  **after the** 

**I I**  **incident asking**  **Kaitlyn to**  **tell the**  **victim he**  **was sorry**  **and asking**  **for forgiveness.**  **It is**  **also clear**  **beyond a**  **reasonable doubt**  **that the**  **testimony of**  **Hatchel and**  **Aston was**  **not I**  **prejudicial and**  **did not**  **contribute to**  **the verdict.**  **Hatchel testified**  **that the**  **victi111 told**  **her a**  **male inserted**  **his penis**  **into her**  **vagina. Aston**  **testified the**  **victim said**  **she was**  **raped. i**  **Nevertheless, the**  **jury returned**  **not guilty**  **verdicts on**  **the counts**  **of rape**  **and sexual**  **assault. Hatchel**  **further testified**  **that the**  **victim never**  **told her**  **the male**  **inserted his**  **fingers into**  **her vagina.**  **Nevertheless, the**  **jury found**  **Appellant guilty**  **of aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **for that**  **specific act.** 
**24 V.**  **The trial**  **court did**  **not impose**  **an illegal sentence**  **on counts**  **three and**  **four of**  **the**

**Information because**  **they do**  **not merge**  **for sentencing**  **purposes. Finally,**  **Appellant asserts**  **the court**  **imposed an**  **illegal sentence**  **on counts**  **1t hree**  **and four**  **of the**  **Information because**  **they should**  **have merged**  **for sentencing**  **purposes.** 

### See **Statement. At**  **sentencing, the**  **prosecutor argued**  **that the**  **two counts**  **of aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **did not**  **merge for**  **sentencing purposes**  **because these**  **were two**  **distinct acts.**  **(N.T.S. at**  **2, 14).**  **The aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **charge in**  **count four**  **was based**  **on digital**  **penetration that**  **occurred without**  **the victim's**  **consent in**  **the upstairs**  **bedroom. Id.**  **at 14-15.**  **The aggravated**  **I indecent**  **assault charge**  **in count**  **three was**  **based on**  **digital penetration**  **by forcible**  **compulsion that**  **occurred downstairs.**  **Id. at**  **15. Appellant's**  **counsel, who**  **did not**  **represent Appellant**  **at trial,**  **was unable**  **to respond.**  **Id. at**  **8, 15-16.**  **Thereafter, the**  **sentencing court**  **agreed with**  **the i**  **Commonwealth that**  **these were**  **two distinct**  **acts which**  **occurred in**  **two different:**  **locations of**  **the house**  **at two**  **different times,**  **approximately twenty**  **to thirty**  **minutes apart.**  **Id. at.**  **16. !**  **Merger of**  **sentences is**  **governed generally**  **by Section**  **9765 of**  **the Sentencing**  **Code, which**  **provides: No**  **crimes shall**  **merge for**  **sentencing purposes**  **unless the**  **crimes arise**  **from a single**  **criminal act**  **and all**  **of the**  **statutory elements**  **of one**  **offense are**  **included in**  **the statutory**  **elements of** **the other offense.**  **Where crimes**  **merge for**  **sentencing 1** **purposes, the**  **court may**  **sentence the**  **defendant only**  **on the**  **higher graded**  **offense. 42**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **9765. Thus,**  **the merger**  **statute prohibits**  **merger unless**  **the crimes**  **arise from**  **a I**  **single criminal**  **act and**  **all statutory**  **elements of**  **one of**  **the offenses**  **are included**  **in the**  **statutory i**  **elements of**  **the other.**  **Commonwealth v.**  **Tanner, 61**  **A.3d 1043,**  **1046 (Pa.**  **Sup�r. 2013).**  **When considering**  **whether there**  **is a**  **single criminal**  **act or**  **multiple crim�nal**  **acts for**  **I purposes**  **of merger**  **at sentencing,**  **the question**  **is not**  **whether there**  **is a**  **break in**  **the chain**  **of**
**25 criminal**  **activity, but**  **rather whether**  **the actor**  **committed multiple**  **criminal acts**  **b�yond that**  **! which**  **is necessary**  **to establish**  **the bare**  **elements of**  **the additional**  **crime.** 

### Commonwealth **v. Pettersen,**  **49 A.3d**  **903, 912**  **(Pa. Super.**  **2012). In**  

### Pettersen, **the defendant's**  **three convictions**  **for aggravated**  **assault did**  **not merge**  **even though**  **the time**  **between the**  **acts was**  **r¢latively short,**  **where the**  **defendant struck**  **the victim**  **in the**  **head with**  **a hammer,**  **stabbed the**  **vic�im in**  **the chest**  **and back,**  **and then**  **attempted to**  **suffocate the**  **victim by**  **placing a**  **bag over**  **her he,ad.**  

### Id. **Moreover, in**  

### Commonwealth **v. Rhoades,**  **8 A.3d**  **912 (Pa.**  **Super. 2010),**  **two counts**  **of**
**' '**  **aggravated assault**  **were not**  **subject to**  **merger for**  **sentencing purposes**  **where the**  **bharges were**  **based on**  **two different**  **subsections of**  **the statute.**  

### Id. **at 918;**  

### see **also Commonwealth**  **v. Orie,**  **88 A.3d 983,**  **1020 (Pa. Super. 2014) (two**  **separate convictions**  **for theft**  **by diversion**  **of services**  **did I**  **not merge**  **where the**  **charged acts**  **involved different**  **time periods**  **and the**  **utilization of**  **different employees).**  **In the**  **present case,**  **the two**  **counts of**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault did**  **not ,arise**  **from a**  **single criminal**  **act. Rather,**  **Appellant committed**  **multiple criminal**  **acts beyond**  **that which**  **was necessary**  **to establish**  **the bare**  **elements of**  **the additional**  **crime. The**  **acts involv�d**  **different time**  **I periods,**  **separated by**  **twenty to**  **thirty minutes,**  **in different**  **locations of**  **the house:.**  **Additionally, the**  **charges were**  **based on**  **two different**  **subsections of**  **the statute.**  **11 Therefore,**  **,f\ppellant' s**  **claim in**  **this regard**  **must fail.** 

**11 The**  **aggravated indecent**  **assault count committed**  **in the**  **upstairs bedroom**  **,Was based**  **on lack**  **of consent**  **found at**  **18 Pa.C.S.A.**  **§ 3125(a)(l).**  **The aggravated**  **indecent assault**  **count committed**  **on the**  **downstairs sofa**  **was based**  **on forcible**  **compulsion found**  **at 18**  **Pa.C.S.A. §**  **3125(a)(2). 26**  **I**

### C�aD�� **j**

**Bas e** **d on**  **th e**  **fo re** **going, th** **e t rial**  **c ourt**  **p r** **operly: (1)**  **admitt e** **d App**  **e llant's**  

### rimenfalsi **convictions; (2)**  **found that**  **Appellant failed**  **to make**  **a timely**  **objection to**  **continuL** 

# I **re p**  **re s**  **e ntation**  **b y**  **th e**  **pu b** **lic d** **e fend** **e r,**  **or in**  **th e**  **al te** **rnativ e**  **found t**  **hat continu** **e d r** **e pr**  **e s**  **e ntation**  **I was**  **n ot**  **a confli**  **c t**  **of in** **t e** **r est;**  **(3) d**  **e ni**  **e d**  **App e** **llant's r** **e ques** **t to**  **introdu c** **e evid**  **e n** **c J r** **e la**  **t ing**  **to**



## - **I othe** **r s**  **e x�al**  **re lations**  **involving th** **e vi**  **c tim;**  **(4) de** **te rmin**  **e d**  **that the**  **t e**  **stimony ofh1/o**  **Comm o** **nw e** **alth witn**  **e ss**  **e s**  **was admissi**  **b l**  **e as**  **pri o** **r c** **onsist e** **nt stat** **e ments**  **in re** **latioh to**  **the vi**  **c tim's**  **p r** **ompt c**  **omplaint; and**  **( 5)**  **c on** **c lud** **e d**  **tha t**  **two c** **oun t** **s of**  **aggrava te** **d ind**  **e d**  **e nt**  **assault did**  **not merg** **e for**  **s e** **n te** **ncing purpos**  **e s**  **wh e** **r e t** **h e** **y w e** **r e b** **as e** **d on**  **diff e** **r e** **n t c** **riminal a** **c ls.**  **Th e** **r e**  **for e**  **, t**  **his appeal**  **should be**  **d e** **ni e** **d.**

**BY THE**  **COURT:**
**Dat e**  **: -"""'O=--** 

**c =**  **t =-**  **ob =-**  **e =**  **r �**  **3 �,** **=2�0� 18**  **�- DONALD**  **R. TOT**  **ARO, JUDGE** 

**Copi e**  **s: Fritz**  **K. Hav** **er sti**  **c k,**  **Esquire, Assis** **t ant**  **Distri c** **t Attorn** **e y** 

**H e**  **ath e** **r L.**  **Adams, Esquir** **e ,**  **Counsel fo** **r App**  **e llan** **t**



### 27 **r l>**  **I� ►**  **c.n -I**  **r:, ::0**  **n 0**  **C: �,;**  **,-...:,** 

# = **n** 

# - **c..;i** 

## ,- **C)** 

# ,.,, **n ::0**  **-4 ::;.:**  **I 0**  **w** 

# ...., **""" n**  **::r;: 0**  **w** 

### c:: **N -I**  **u:, (I)**  

# 0

- �

. T �

-I • • :::0 �