J. A19032/18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1703 MDA 2017

:

GEOFFREY ALAN BECKNER :

Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County

Criminal Division at No. CP-28-CR-0001167-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., NICHOLS, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2019

The Commonwealth appeals from the October 26, 2017 order granting 

appellee’s motion to quash the criminal information and ordering that a new 

preliminary hearing be conducted before a different magisterial district judge. 

After careful review, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this memorandum.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows:

[Appellee] was arrested and charged with multiple 

counts of sexual offenses[

1] allegedly committed 

against four male children of his former girlfriend 

[M.]: M.M. age eight, T.M. age nine, B.M. age ten, 

and A.C. age twelve. All four children were 

interviewed about the allegations at the Children’s 

Advocacy Center (“CAC”). The CAC interviews were 

 

1 Specifically, appellee was charged with aggravated indecent assault and four 

counts each of indecent assault and corruption of minors. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 3125(b), 3126(a)(7), and 6301(a)(1)(ii), respectively.
J. A19032/18

- 2 -

conducted on August 1, 2016, and all four were 

videotaped. The case was initially scheduled for a 

preliminary hearing on October 25, 2016, but the 

Commonwealth requested a continuance to 

November 29, 2016, so that Tender Years and 

Closed-Circuit Testimony Motions could be filed. Both 

Motions were filed on October 27, 2016. Pursuant to 

its Tender Years Motion, the Commonwealth seeks to 

introduce the statements made by M.M., T.M., B.M., 

and A.C. to the forensic interviewer as substantive 

evidence at both the preliminary hearing and at trial. 

Pursuant to its Motion for Closed-Circuit Testimony, 

the Commonwealth requests the Court to permit each 

child’s testimony to be transmitted by 

contemporaneous alternative method so that they do 

not have to testify in the presence of [appellee].

An in camera hearing was held on February 6, 2017, 

at which time the children gave testimony. Pursuant 

to 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 5985.1,[2] the child victims were

 

2 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) General rule.--An out-of-court statement 

made by a child victim or witness, who at the 

time the statement was made was 12 years of 

age or younger, describing any of the offenses 

enumerated in 18 Pa.C.S. Chs. . . . 31 (relating 

to sexual offenses) . . . not otherwise 

admissible by statute or rule of evidence, is 

admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil 

proceeding if:

(1) the court finds, in an in camera

hearing, that the evidence is 

relevant and that the time, content 

and circumstances of the statement 

provide sufficient indicia of 

reliability; and

(2) the child either:

(i) testifies at the proceeding; 

or
J. A19032/18

- 3 -

questioned outside the presence of [appellee]. The 

Commonwealth also called the following witnesses: 

the boys’ mother, [M.], her partner, [S.L.], and 

forensic interviewer, Becky Voss. At the conclusion of 

the hearing, the Court asked both counsel to submit 

briefs in support of their respective positions. The

Commonwealth filed its Brief in Support of its Motion 

for Closed-Circuit Testimony and the Admission of 

Statements Under the Tender Years Exception to the 

Hearsay Rule on March 13, 2017. [Appellee] filed his 

Brief in Opposition to the Commonwealth’s Tender 

Years Motion and Motion for Closed Circuit Testimony 

on March 13, 2017. On April 6, 2017, this Court 

entered an Opinion and Order of Court granting both 

of the Commonwealth’s Motions.

Opinion of the Honorable Carol L. Van Horn, 12/22/17 at 2-3.

On May 9, 2017, at the behest of appellee, Magisterial District Judge 

Duane K. Cunningham (“MDJ Cunningham”) issued subpoenas for the children 

to testify on appellee’s behalf at the preliminary hearing scheduled for June 1, 

2017. The Commonwealth filed a motion to quash the subpoenas with the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas the following day. Appellee, in turn, 

filed an answer to the Commonwealth’s motion to quash on May 19, 2017.

On May 31, 2017, an evidentiary hearing on this matter was conducted before 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Van Horn, at the conclusion of 

which this matter was remanded to MDJ Cunningham “to determine if any

condition should be placed upon his order for subpoena in light of 

 

(ii) is unavailable as a witness.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1(a)(1), (2).
J. A19032/18

- 4 -

[Judge Van Horn’s] opinion filed April 6, 2017.” (Order, 5/31/17 at ¶ 2.) A 

preliminary hearing was held before MDJ Cunningham on June 1, 2017. At 

said hearing, MDJ Cunningham ruled that appellee was precluded from calling 

the children as witnesses and imposed the condition that the closed-circuit 

video testimony would be admitted pursuant to Judge Van Horn’s April 6, 2017 

order and opinion. All charges were bound over for trial. 

On July 18, 2017, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information. On 

August 18, 2017, appellee filed a “Motion to Quash and Motion for Temporary 

Assignment of Issuing Authority.” Judge Van Horn held a hearing on 

appellee’s motion on October 26, 2017. Following said hearing, 

Judge Van Horn entered an order quashing the criminal information and 

ordering that a new preliminary hearing be conducted before a different 

magisterial district judge. (See order, 10/26/17 at ¶¶ 2-3.) The 

Commonwealth filed a timely notice of appeal on November 1, 2017.

3

 On 

November 7, 2017, Judge Van Horn ordered the Commonwealth to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The Commonwealth filed its timely Rule 1925(b) 

statement on November 28, 2017, and Judge Van Horn filed a Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on December 22, 2017.

 

3 The Commonwealth certified in its notice of appeal that, pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), the October 26, 2017 order will terminate or substantially 

handicap the prosecution.
J. A19032/18

- 5 -

On April 3, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting

permission “to file a Corrected Brief to reflect the correct Jurisdictional 

Statement/Appeal by Permission.” (See “Motion to File Corrected Brief,”

4/3/18 at 1.) The Commonwealth indicated that it “inadvertently inserted a[] 

Statement of Jurisdiction from another County in another Commonwealth 

appeal having to do with an appeal as of right regarding sentencing as 

opposed to this appeal which is interlocutory and which may be taken with 

permission.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) On April 6, 2018, this court issued a per curiam

order granting the Commonwealth’s motion. The Commonwealth filed its 

amended brief that same day. Appellee, in turn, filed an amended brief on 

April 24, 2018, arguing that:

The instant appeal must be quashed because (1) the 

Commonwealth has waived the appeal taken as of 

right under Rule 311(d) by asserting the appeal 

should be granted by permission in all of its filings in 

the Superior Court, (2) the Court has not granted 

permission for the instant appeal, (3) the 

Commonwealth has failed to follow any of the 

procedures set forth in Rule 312 or Chapter 13, and 

(4) the order appealed does not conform to the 

requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 702(b) relative to 

interlocutory orders appealable by permission. 

Appellee’s amended brief at 10. On April 25, 2018, appellee filed a motion to 

quash the Commonwealth’s appeal, which was deferred to the merits panel 

on May 15, 2018. 

The appealability of an order directly implicates the 

jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order. 

[T]his Court has the power to inquire at any time, 
J. A19032/18

- 6 -

sua sponte, whether an order is appealable. 

Pennsylvania law makes clear:

[A]n appeal may be taken from: (1) a final 

order or an order certified as a final order 

(Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2) an interlocutory 

order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3) an 

interlocutory order by permission 

(Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 702(b)); or (4) a collateral order 

(Pa.R.A.P. 313).

Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 803 (Pa.Super. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks and case citations and omitted).

For the reasons that follow, we find that the October 26, 2017 order

meets the requirements for an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 311(d),4 because it will terminate or substantially handicap the 

Commonwealth’s prosecution. We further note that although the 

Commonwealth asserts in its amended brief that it is now “seeking permission 

(pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. [] 312, Chapter 13) to file this interlocutory appeal[,]”

it continues to aver that the October 26, 2017 order will substantially handicap

 

4 Rule 311(d) provides as follows:

(d) Commonwealth appeals in criminal 

cases.--In a criminal case, under the 

circumstances provided by law, the 

Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right 

from an order that does not end the entire case 

where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice 

of appeal that the order will terminate or 

substantially handicap the prosecution.

Pa.R.A.P. 311(d).
J. A19032/18

- 7 -

its prosecution. (See Commonwealth’s amended brief at 4.). Accordingly, 

we cannot agree with appellee that the Commonwealth waived its right to

“take an appeal as of right” pursuant to Rule 311(d). See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). 

Courts in this Commonwealth have long recognized that the Tender 

Years Hearsay Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1, governs the admission of hearsay 

statements made by a child victim of sexual abuse. See Commonwealth v. 

Walter, 93 A.3d 442, 451-452 (Pa. 2014). “The tender years exception 

allows for the admission of a child’s out-of-court statement because of the 

fragile nature of young victims of sexual abuse.” Commonwealth v. 

Lukowich, 875 A.2d 1169, 1172 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 885 A.2d 

41 (Pa. 2005). A statement admitted under Section 5985.1 must possess 

sufficient indicia of reliability, as determined from the time, content, and 

circumstances of its making. Commonwealth v. O’Drain, 829 A.2d 316, 

320 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

In all circumstances, the trial court is required to first 

assess the reliability of the proffered statement and 

second, the availability of the child who made it. If 

the child whose statement is offered will not be 

presented as a witness, the court must determine 

whether the child is “unavailable,” that is whether 

testifying would cause serious emotional distress that 

would substantially impair the child’s ability to 

communicate reasonably before the court. Only if 

both prongs are met will the evidence be deemed 

admissible. 

Fidler v. Cunningham-Small, 871 A.2d 231, 235 (Pa.Super. 2005) 

(applying the Tender Years Hearsay Act exception in a civil proceeding). 
J. A19032/18

- 8 -

“Factors to consider when making the determination of reliability include, but 

are not limited to, the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the 

statement(s); the mental state of the declarant; and, the lack of motive to 

fabricate.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 255 (Pa.Super. 2003), 

appeal denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005).

Here, Judge Van Horn explicitly found in her opinion in support of the 

April 6, 2017 order that “the statements of all four children that were given to 

the forensic interviewer during the August 1, 2016 interviews are relevant and 

possess sufficient indicia of reliability.” (Opinion of Judge Van Horn, 4/6/17 

at 30.) In reaching this conclusion, Judge Van Horn reasoned that requiring 

the children to testify in appellee’s presence at the preliminary hearing would 

cause them to suffer serious emotional distress and impair their ability to 

effectively communicate. (Id. at 24, 26, 28, 30.) Thus, it logically follows 

that the court’s October 26, 2017 order granting appellee a new preliminary 

hearing in front of a different magisterial district judge, at which the children 

could presumably be subpoenaed to testify in appellee’s presence, would 

subject them to additional emotional distress and substantially handicap the 

Commonwealth’s prosecution. Accordingly, we deny appellee’s motion to 

quash this appeal. 

We now turn to the merits of the Commonwealth’s argument. The 

Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:

Did [Judge Van Horn] commit an error of law in 

granting [appellee’s] motion to quash information 
J. A19032/18

- 9 -

based solely on a purported error committed by the 

magisterial district judge with regard to a ruling made 

on [appellee’s] ability and/or right to subpoena the 

victim(s) to testify at the preliminary hearing?

Commonwealth’s amended brief at 6.

Our standard of review in assessing whether a trial court erred in 

quashing a criminal information is well settled.

The decision to grant a motion to quash a criminal 

information or indictment is within the sound 

discretion of the trial judge and will be reversed on 

appeal only where there has been a clear abuse of 

discretion. Discretion is abused when the course 

pursued by the trial court represents not merely an 

error of judgment, but where the judgment is 

manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not 

applied or where the record shows that the action is a 

result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.

Commonwealth v. Wyland, 987 A.2d 802, 804-805 (Pa.Super. 2010)

(citations and quotation marks omitted), appeal denied, 8 A.3d 346 (Pa. 

2010).

In the instant matter, Judge Van Horn found that “[it] is persuaded that 

[appellee] is permitted to call the children to testify on his behalf at the 

preliminary hearing” and that the Commonwealth’s argument to the contrary 

is meritless. (Opinion of Judge Van Horn, 12/22/17 at 8.) In reaching this 

conclusion, Judge Van Horn relied primarily on Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(C)(3)5 and 

 

5 Rule 542(C)(3) provides that, “[t]he defendant shall be present at any 

preliminary hearing except as provided in these rules, and may . . . call 

witnesses on the defendant’s behalf, other than witnesses to the defendant’s 

good reputation only[.]” Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(C)(3).
J. A19032/18

- 10 -

our supreme court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Mullen, 333 A.2d 755 

(Pa. 1975). At the October 26, 2017 hearing, Judge Van Horn set forth the 

following rationale in support of her decision to quash the criminal information 

and order that a new preliminary hearing be conducted before a different 

magisterial district judge:

[T]his isn’t a case where I believe [appellee’s] request 

to call the witnesses at a preliminary hearing is an 

attempt to gain an advantage or to get discovery or 

to find out what the Commonwealth’s case is because 

we’ve already heard through the prior hearing what 

the witnesses have said. The hearing to the

Commonwealth on the Commonwealth’s motion to 

have the victim[s] testify by closed circuit. We heard 

each of the victims, so this is not a fishing expedition 

on the part of [appellee] to try to find out what are 

these alleged victims going to say or how they could 

be challenged. We’ve already gone through that, so I 

believe that Mullen is good and that 

[Pa.R.Crim.P.] 542([C])(3) does permit [appellee] to 

call witnesses on his behalf and the proposed 

witnesses are not ones to testify to his good 

reputation so they are not prohibited by the rule.

Opinion of Judge Van Horn, 12/22/17 at 8-9, quoting notes of testimony, 

10/26/17 at 6-7 (emphasis added).

While it may be true that appellee has a rule-based right to call 

witnesses at a preliminary hearing, see Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 

349 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 170

A.3d 494 (Pa. 2017), it is also true that the findings of the trial court as to the 

Tender Years issue apply with equal force to the preliminary hearing. Upon 

review, we find that Mullen is distinguishable from the instant matter and 
J. A19032/18

- 11 -

that Judge Van Horn’s reliance on it is misplaced. Mullen involved a 

defendant who was denied the right to call prospective Commonwealth 

witnesses, including “the police officer who was the prosecutor,” at a 

preliminary hearing. Mullen, 333 A.2d at 756. The Court of Common Pleas 

of Montgomery County disagreed with the district justice’s decision and 

remanded for a preliminary hearing de novo with the defendant having “the 

right to call any witnesses in his behalf excepting only witnesses to his good 

reputation.” Id. at 756-757. The Commonwealth subsequently appealed. In 

ruling that the defendant was not limited to calling only those witnesses at his 

preliminary hearing who would offer testimony favorable to his defense, the 

Mullen court held that “the defendant has the right to contest the existence 

of a prima facie case and may not be denied the opportunity of presenting 

evidence which, in his view, negates its existence.” Id. at 757.6

Unlike in Mullen, where the defendant was charged with criminal 

homicide and aggravated assault and the prospective witnesses were 

 

6 Additionally, we note that the comment to Rule 542 indicates that:

Paragraph (C)(3) is intended to make clear that the 

defendant may call witnesses at a preliminary hearing 

only to negate the existence of a prima facie case, 

and not merely for the purpose of discovering the 

Commonwealth’s case. The modification changes the 

language of the rule interpreted by the Court in 

[Mullen]. This amendment was made to preserve the 

limited function of a preliminary hearing.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 542 Comment.
J. A19032/18

- 12 -

eyewitnesses to these crimes, this matter concerns the testimony of child 

victims of sexual abuse and the Tender Years Hearsay Act, whose purpose is 

to protect the emotional well-being of said witnesses. We decline to find that 

Mullen entitles appellee to present an unrestrained defense at a preliminary 

hearing involving such witnesses. The principal function of a preliminary 

hearing “is to protect the right against unlawful arrest and detention.” 

Commonwealth v. Ricker, 170 A.3d 494, 497 (Pa. 2017). At this hearing 

the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that 

a crime has been committed and that the accused is the one who committed 

it. See Commonwealth v. Patrick, 933 A.2d 1043, 1045 (Pa.Super. 2007), 

appeal denied, 940 A.2d 364 (Pa. 2007). “Although a preliminary hearing 

may permit capable defense counsel to lay the groundwork for a trial defense, 

its intended purpose is not primarily to provide defense counsel with 

the opportunity to assess the credibility of Commonwealth witnesses 

. . . or to design avenues for the impeachment of witnesses at trial.” 

Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943, 984 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis 

added). 

Here, MDJ Cunningham was well within his discretion to protect the 

emotional well-being of the children by limiting the preliminary hearing to 

include only that evidence relevant to a prima facie showing, pursuant to 

Judge Van Horn’s April 6, 2017 order and opinion. Any further testing of this 

testimony must await a full trial. Judge Van Horn’s disregard of her prior 
J. A19032/18

- 13 -

holding in electing to quash the criminal information and order that a new 

preliminary hearing be conducted before a different magisterial district judge 

contravened the purposes of the Tender Years Hearsay Act and constituted an 

abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the October 26, 2017 order 

and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this 

memorandum. 

Order vacated. Motion to quash appeal denied. Case remanded for 

further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/27/2019