J-A20032-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

GARY L. CAIN JR.

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1200 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 8, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000280-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2019

Appellant, Gary L. Cain Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial 

convictions for one count each of rape, statutory sexual assault, involuntary 

deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) with a person less than 16 years old, 

attempted IDSI with a person less than 16 years old, sexual assault, and 

corruption of minors (“COM”), two counts of indecent assault, and sixteen 

counts of unlawful contact with a minor.1 We affirm.

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

March 17, 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with 158 counts of 

various sex offenses in relation to sexual assaults Appellant committed on 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(1); 3122.1; 3123(a)(7); 901 (section 3123(a)(7) 

related); 3124.1; 6301(a)(1)(ii); 3126(a)(1), (8); 6318(a)(1), respectively. 
J-A20032-19

- 2 -

Victim between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016, beginning when Victim 

was 12 years old. Victim was acquainted with Appellant because he was a 

neighbor, and Appellant and his family lived with Victim for a short time after 

Appellant’s house was damaged by fire. Specifically, the affidavit of probable 

cause alleged, inter alia:

The following are [V]ictim’s [recollections] of the assaults. 

It is believed Probable Cause exists to indicate that 

[Appellant] had anally raped [Victim] on (13) different 

occasions, once while she was less than 13 [years old]. He 

had also attempted to have sex with her on another 

occasion and indecently assaulted her on a separate one.

- At a time period when [Appellant] was rebuilding his house 

in Unionville ([h]is original house burnt down in Dec 2012) 

he put [V]ictim’s head between his legs while both were 

clothed. Only inappropriate touching occurred. Victim 

believed to be 12 [years old] at [the] time.

- On another occasion while [Appellant] was rebuilding his 

house, he was sitting on a chair with [Victim] in the living 

room and performed anal sex on her against her wishes. 

She was believed to be 12 [years old] at the time.

- When [Victim] lived beside [Appellant] in Unionville, he 

had her come into his bedroom and performed anal sex on 

her against her wishes. She was believed to be 13 [years 

old] at the time.

- When at [Victim’s] house in Unionville, [Appellant] had 

anal sex with her while he and his family were staying with 

them until he could move into his rebuilt house ([f]rom Dec 

2012-Jan 2013). She would have been 13 [years old] at the 

time.

- When [Victim] was over at [Appellant’s] house after the 

rebuild, [Appellant] forced anal sex with her in his 

daughter’s bedroom when no one else was home. She 

would have been 13 [years old].
J-A20032-19

- 3 -

- At [Appellant’s] residence in the bathroom after the 

rebuild. His other family members were busy at the time 

with company. He performed anal sex with her. [Victim] 

would have been 13 years old at [the] time.

- At [Appellant’s] house after the rebuild in his living room 

on the couch. It was just her and [Appellant] present at 

[the] time. He took off his pants and had her get [on top] 

of him and began “humping” her with clothes on before 

someone came to the residence door. [Victim] would have 

been 13 [years old].

- At [Victim’s] house [in Milesburg] in her bedroom. 

[Victim’s] mother and sisters were there. He forced her to 

have anal sex with her. She would have been 14 [years old] 

at this time.

- In [Appellant’s] truck when [Victim] lived...in Milesburg. 

[Appellant] drove his truck back somewhere away from 

houses not far from where she was living. He parked it and 

performed anal sex on her. She was 14 [years old] at this 

time.

- At the Howard Dam at [the] time when [Victim] was still 

living [in Milesburg]. [Appellant’s wife] had picked her up 

and taken her there. The three of them were there when 

[Appellant] sent [his wife] to get something in the car. 

[Appellant] then forced her to have anal sex. She was 14 

[years old] at the time.

- Two occasions in the woods when [Victim] was living [in 

Milesburg]. [Victim] was going to her [grandmother’s] 

house in Unionville when [Appellant] asked her to go back 

in the woods with him. He performed sex on her from the 

front and she believed she was bleeding. He still made her 

have anal sex with him. She stated that her “butt” and front 

hurt after the incident(s).

- There was an incident in the weeds by [Victim’s 

grandmother’s] house in Unionville. [Victim] was living [in 

Milesburg]. [Appellant] forced her to have anal sex with 

him. She would have been 14 [years old] at the time.

- At a hotel on Benner Pike in Bellefonte. Believed it was 
J-A20032-19

- 4 -

Econolodge. [Victim] lived in Bellefonte at the time and 

[Appellant] picked her up under the premise that he was 

going to get tires on his truck. He rented a room for a few 

hours and had anal sex with her. She was 16 [years old] at 

the time.

- At the Kepler Pool parking lot when [Victim] was living in 

Bellefonte. He forced her to have anal sex with him. She 

would have been 16 [years old] at the time.

All of the aforementioned incidents happened against 

[V]ictim’s wishes.

(Affidavit of Probable Cause, dated February 10, 2017, at 1-2). 

On November 3, 2017, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine for 

introduction of evidence of prior bad acts, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b). 

Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to introduce the following evidence: 

(1) in July of 1994, Appellant lured 13-year-old E.S. into his car in the middle 

of the night under false pretenses; Appellant drove E.S. to a secluded parking 

lot and forcibly raped her; Appellant told E.S. not to tell anyone; (2) on July 

25, 2000, Appellant pled guilty to six counts of statutory sexual assault and 

one count each of COM and aggravated indecent assault, in connection with 

Appellant’s sexual assaults on J.D.; Appellant had sex with J.D. six times 

between September 11, 1999 and November 20, 1999; J.D. was 13 years old 

at the time; the court sentenced Appellant on April 25, 2001, to an aggregate 

5 to 10 years’ imprisonment; (3) on July 25, 2000, Appellant pled guilty to 

three counts of statutory sexual assault and one count of COM, in connection 

with Appellant’s sexual assaults on A.H.; Appellant had sex with A.H. three 

times between September 1, 1999 and November 26, 1999; A.H. was 
J-A20032-19

- 5 -

approximately 15 years old at the time; the court sentenced Appellant to an 

aggregate 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment (concurrent with the sentence imposed 

relative to J.D.); (4) on July 25, 2000, Appellant pled guilty to one count each 

of aggravated indecent assault and COM, and three counts of indecent assault, 

in connection with Appellant’s sexual assaults on M.V.; Appellant had sexual 

contact with M.V. twice between November 1, 1999 and January 28, 2000; 

M.V. was approximately 14 years old at the time; Appellant took M.V. for a 

ride to a secluded location and assaulted her in his car; the court sentenced 

Appellant to an aggregate 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment (concurrent with the 

sentence imposed relative to J.D. and A.H.), plus 10 years’ probation. 

The Commonwealth argued evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts was 

strikingly similar to the current offenses, highly probative, and demonstrated 

a common plan, scheme or design. The Commonwealth emphasized that each 

of Appellant’s victims was a young teenage girl, between the ages of 12 and 

15 when the assaults began, who was an acquaintance or neighbor of 

Appellant. In each instance, Appellant found ways to be alone with his victims. 

The Commonwealth insisted Appellant’s prior offenses were similar to the 

current offenses, in which Appellant sexually assaulted Victim over a dozen 

times when she was between 12 and 16 years old, in multiple parking lots, 

secluded locations, and in his or Victim’s bathroom or bedroom. The 

Commonwealth maintained the proffered evidence showed a clear pattern of 

behavior. The Commonwealth contended its substantial need to present the 
J-A20032-19

- 6 -

proffered evidence because Appellant assaulted Victim in private over a period 

of years, leading to a lack of forensic evidence. As well, the Commonwealth 

claimed the proffered evidence was necessary to rebut Appellant’s theory that 

Victim fabricated the allegations. The Commonwealth further averred the 

court should exclude the time of Appellant’s incarceration (from March 28, 

2000 to December 4, 2006) when conducting a remoteness analysis. 

On November 6, 2017, Appellant filed a motion in limine to admit 

evidence of “manipulation” and a “civil conspiracy to fabricate.” Specifically, 

Appellant alleged, inter alia, he has two daughters who were sexually 

assaulted by William Beck. Appellant maintained the Commonwealth was 

currently prosecuting William Beck for those sexual assaults. Appellant 

claimed David Beck (William Beck’s brother) dates or is best friends with 

Victim. Appellant insisted William Beck was arrested on or around June 8, 

2016. Appellant emphasized that David Beck called police on or around June 

22, 2016, to report the current sexual offenses by Appellant on Victim. 

Appellant sought to introduce evidence of various jailhouse recordings 

between William Beck and other members of the Beck family during June 

2016, in which William Beck stated he would only get 5 to 10 years’ 

imprisonment in connection with his sexual assaults on Appellant’s daughters,

if he could implicate Appellant in any type of criminal wrongdoing. Appellant 

contended the jailhouse recordings expressly discussed Victim and 

encouraged Victim to report Appellant’s assaults. Appellant insisted the 
J-A20032-19

- 7 -

proffered evidence showed a relationship between Victim and the Beck family 

and Victim was fabricating the allegations against Appellant in retaliation for 

Appellant’s accusations that William Beck had sexually assaulted his 

daughters. 

The court held a motion in limine hearing on November 7, 2017. On 

November 9, 2017, the court denied both motions. That day, the 

Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration. The court held a hearing 

on the Commonwealth’s motion for reconsideration on November 13, 2017. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court permitted the Commonwealth to 

introduce evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts concerning only M.V. and A.H. 

Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on November 14, 2017. On 

November 15, 2017, the jury convicted Appellant of one count each of rape, 

statutory sexual assault, IDSI with a person less than 16 years old, attempted 

IDSI with a person less than 16 years old, sexual assault, and COM, two counts 

of indecent assault, and sixteen counts of unlawful contact with a minor. The 

court sentenced Appellant on February 8, 2018, to an aggregate 175 to 350 

years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions on 

Tuesday, February 20, 2018.

2

 The court held a hearing on Appellant’s postsentence motions on May 11, 2018, and denied relief on June 22, 2018. 

____________________________________________

2 February 18, 2018 was a Sunday and the court was closed on Monday, 

February 19, 2018 for Presidents’ Day. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1908 (explaining 

whenever last day of any filing period falls on Saturday or Sunday, or on any 

legal holiday, that day shall be omitted from computation). 
J-A20032-19

- 8 -

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on July 18, 2018. On August 9, 2018, 

the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on 

August 22, 2018. 

Appellant raises two issues for our review:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROHIBITING 

APPELLANT FROM INTRODUCING RELEVANT, RELIABLE, 

AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF WILLIAM 

BECK’S JAILHOUSE RECORDINGS AT TRIAL?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE 

COMMONWEALTH’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, 

WHICH PERMITTED THE ADMISSION OF PRIOR BAD ACT 

EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF APPELLANT’S PAST CRIMINAL 

CONVICTIONS FOR CONDUCT THAT WAS NOT 

SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR TO THE CHARGES AT ISSUE, 

WHERE THE PRIOR BAD ACTS WERE ADMITTEDLY BEING 

USED TO SHOW PROPENSITY ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 

AND BOLSTER THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINING 

WITNESS, AND WHERE THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF THIS 

EVIDENCE GREATLY OUTWEIGHED ANY ARGUABLE

PROBATIVE VALUE?

(Appellant’s Brief at 11). 

Our standard of review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of 

evidence is well established and very narrow: 

Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent 

a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. 

Not merely an error in judgment, an abuse of discretion 

occurs when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the 

judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the 

result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by 

the evidence on record. 

Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386, 403, 986 A.2d 84, 94 (2009), 
J-A20032-19

- 9 -

cert. denied, 562 U.S. 857, 131 S.Ct. 127, 178 L.Ed.2d 77 (2010) (internal 

citations and quotation marks omitted). Our scope of review in cases where 

the trial court explains the basis for its evidentiary ruling is limited to an 

examination of the stated reason. Commonwealth v. Stephens, 74 A.3d 

1034, 1037 (Pa.Super. 2013). “We must also be mindful that a discretionary 

ruling cannot be overturned simply because a reviewing court disagrees with 

the trial court’s conclusion.” Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966, 968 

(Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 695, 845 A.2d 817 (2004). 

In his first issue, Appellant argues the jailhouse recordings 

demonstrated Victim’s relationship with the Beck family and suggested

Victim’s motive to fabricate the allegations against Appellant. Appellant 

asserts the recordings were reliable, relevant, and exculpatory evidence

because they showed Victim’s bias against Appellant. Appellant claims the 

recordings are not hearsay because Appellant offered them only to show 

Victim’s motive to lie, and not for the truth of the matter asserted. In any 

event, Appellant contends the recordings were admissible under the 

“statement against interest” hearsay exception. Appellant maintains the 

probative value of the recordings vastly outweighed its prejudicial effect. 

Appellant insists the recordings were the only way to prove Victim’s motive to 

fabricate. Appellant highlights a remark from the notes of a Children and 

Youth Services (“CYS”) caseworker expressing concern that Mary Beck was 

“filling [Victim’s] head full of stuff in retaliation.” Appellant contends the 
J-A20032-19

- 10 -

caseworker’s note supported his claim of a motive to fabricate. Appellant 

concludes the trial court’s exclusion of the jailhouse recordings was improper, 

and this Court must reverse and remand for a new trial.

3

 We disagree.

“The threshold inquiry with the admission of evidence is whether the 

evidence is relevant.” Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644, 654 

(Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 625 Pa. 636, 89 A.3d 661 (2014). “Evidence 

is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to 

make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference 

or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact.” Id. See also

Pa.R.E. 401 (defining relevant evidence). Nevertheless, “[t]he court may 

exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of 

one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, 

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting 

cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403. See also Commonwealth v. Cook, 544 

Pa. 361, 676 A.2d 639 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1119, 117 S.Ct. 967, 

136 L.Ed.2d 851 (1997) (holding trial court properly excluded defendant’s 

proffered testimony from four witnesses, that victim owed money to his drug 

supplier, to support defense theory that Appellant did not commit crimes at 

____________________________________________

3 To the extent Appellant raises a due process argument on appeal, that 

particular claim is waived for failure to specify it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. 

See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal 

denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining vague concise 

statement is functional equivalent of no statement at all; failure to specify 

claim of error in concise statement constitutes waiver on appeal).
J-A20032-19

- 11 -

issue; proffered evidence was merely speculative and had little to no probative 

value). 

Instantly, the trial court addressed this issue as follows:

[Appellant] sought to introduce jailhouse recordings of 

William Beck and [Mr.] Beck’s family. The recordings clearly 

indicate William Beck’s hatred of [Appellant] and [Mr.] 

Beck’s willful desire to...provide testimony against 

[Appellant]. There is nothing in the records demonstrating 

a plan to have [V]ictim in this case fabricate allegations or 

testimony. The [c]ourt determined that this speculative 

evidence must be excluded because its probative value was 

significantly outweighed by its likelihood to confuse the 

issues and mislead the jury. 

(Opinion in Support of Denial of Post-Sentence Motions, filed June 22, 2018, 

at 1-2). We see no reason to disrupt the court’s analysis. See Montalvo, 

supra; Stephens, supra; O’Brien, supra.

The record shows Victim was not a party to any of the proffered jailhouse 

recordings. Additionally, the recordings did not indicate a plan for Victim to 

fabricate allegations. To the contrary, the recordings demonstrated only that 

Victim disclosed Appellant’s sexual abuse to a member of the Beck family. 

The fact that William Beck believed he might receive a more lenient sentence 

in his own case for providing information about Appellant’s abuse of Victim did

not mean Victim fabricated the abuse. Consequently, the recordings were not 

exculpatory, and the trial court properly excluded them as speculative, 

confusing, and not probative. See Pa.R.E. 403; Cook, supra. 

Moreover, the jury heard testimony regarding Victim’s 

friendship/relationship with David Beck, William Beck’s pending charges for 
J-A20032-19

- 12 -

sexually assaulting Appellant’s daughters, CYS’ warning to Victim’s mother to 

keep Victim away from David Beck, and David Beck’s initial report to police of

Appellant’s sexual assaults on Victim. Thus, the jury heard other evidence to 

support Appellant’s theory of fabrication but rejected that theory. Therefore, 

Appellant’s first issue merits no relief.4

In his second issue, Appellant argues the Commonwealth’s proffered 

evidence of prior bad acts was not substantially similar to the crimes charged 

in the current case. Appellant emphasizes Victim’s allegations of anal sex at 

various locations, which Appellant insists are wholly different from the 

allegations of A.H. and M.V. Appellant contends his convictions involving A.H. 

and M.V. are almost 20 years old. Appellant stresses the probative value of 

the prior bad acts evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice. Appellant 

claims the Commonwealth’s position that the prior bad acts evidence was 

particularly important to rebut Appellant’s theory of fabrication was baseless,

because the court had already precluded the jailhouse recordings. Appellant 

concludes the admission of evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts was 

improper, and this Court must reverse and remand for a new trial.5 We 

____________________________________________

4 Due to our disposition, we do not have to decide whether the recordings met 

any hearsay exception. 

5 Appellant also argues the Commonwealth conceded in its motion for 

reconsideration that it sought to introduce evidence of Appellant’s prior bad 

acts to show Appellant’s propensity to commit crimes. When read in its 

entirety, however, the motion for reconsideration plainly sought to introduce 

evidence of prior bad acts to demonstrate a common plan or scheme.
J-A20032-19

- 13 -

disagree.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides as follows:

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts

* * *

(b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other 

act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order 

to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in 

accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for 

another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, 

intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of 

mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence 

is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence 

outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

* * *

Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)-(2). “[E]vidence of prior crimes is not admissible for the 

sole purpose of demonstrating a criminal defendant’s propensity to commit 

crimes.” Commonwealth v. Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278, 1283 

(Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, “[e]vidence 

may be admissible in certain circumstances where it is relevant for some other 

legitimate purpose and not utilized solely to blacken the defendant’s 

character.” Id. Specifically, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible 

if offered for a non-propensity purpose, such as proof of an actor’s knowledge, 

plan, motive, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Commonwealth 

v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 889 A.2d 501 (2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 848, 
J-A20032-19

- 14 -

127 S.Ct. 101, 166 L.Ed.2d 82 (2006). When offered for a legitimate purpose, 

evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is admissible if its probative value 

outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice. Commonwealth v. Hairston, 

624 Pa. 143, 84 A.3d 657 (2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 164, 

190 L.Ed.2d 118 (2014). 

This Court has explained:

When ruling upon the admissibility of evidence under the 

common plan exception, the trial court must first examine 

the details and surrounding circumstances of each criminal 

incident to assure that the evidence reveals criminal conduct 

which is distinctive and so nearly identical as to become the 

signature of the same perpetrator. Relevant to such a 

finding will be the habits or patterns of action or conduct 

undertaken by the perpetrator to commit crime, as well as 

the time, place, and types of victims typically chosen by the 

perpetrator. Given this initial determination, the court is 

bound to engage in a careful balancing test to assure that 

the common plan evidence is not too remote in time to be 

probative. If the evidence reveals that the details of each 

criminal incident are nearly identical, the fact that the 

incidents are separated by a lapse of time will not likely 

prevent the offer of the evidence unless the time lapse is 

excessive. Finally, the trial court must assure that the 

probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by its 

potential prejudicial impact upon the trier of fact. To do so, 

the court must balance the potential prejudicial impact of 

the evidence with such factors as the degree of similarity 

established between the incidents of criminal conduct, the 

Commonwealth’s need to present evidence under the 

common plan exception, and the ability of the trial court to 

caution the jury concerning the proper use of such evidence 

by them in their deliberations.

Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 633 Pa. 787, 128 A.3d 220 (2015) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. G.D.M., Sr., 926 A.2d 984, 987 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal 
J-A20032-19

- 15 -

denied, 596 Pa. 715, 944 A.2d 756 (2008)). See also Commonwealth v. 

Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 604 Pa. 696, 986 

A.2d 150 (2009) (explaining that, in comparing methods and circumstances 

of separate crimes, court must necessarily look for similarities including: (1) 

manner in which crimes were committed; (2) weapons used; (3) ostensible 

purpose of crime; (4) location; and (5) type of victims). “The common scheme 

exception does not require that the two scenarios be identical in every

respect.” Tyson, supra at 360 n.3 (emphasis in original). 

Further, although “remoteness in time is a factor to be considered in 

determining the probative value of other crimes evidence under the theory of 

common scheme, plan or design, the importance of the time period is 

inversely proportional to the similarity of the crimes in question.” Id. at 359 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa.Super. 2010), 

appeal denied, 607 Pa. 694, 4 A.3d 157 (2010)). Significantly, time spent 

incarcerated is excluded from the calculation of elapsed time between crimes. 

See Commonwealth v. Rush, 538 Pa. 104, 646 A.2d 557 (1994) (excluding 

defendant’s period of incarceration for remoteness analysis); O’Brien, supra

(holding defendant’s prior convictions from 1985 for similar sexual offenses 

were not too remote in time from current January 1996 offenses where 

defendant was incarcerated for prior offenses until April 1990; relevant 

timeframe for remoteness analysis was less than six years).

Evidence of relevant prior crimes or bad acts is admissible “if the 
J-A20032-19

- 16 -

probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” 

Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279, 284 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc). 

“‘Unfair prejudice’ means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis 

or to divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence 

impartially.” Commonwealth v. Dillon, 592 Pa. 351, 366, 925 A.2d 131, 

141 (2007) (quoting Pa.R.E. 403, Comment). 

Evidence will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful 

to the defendant. This Court has stated that it is not 

required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts 

from the jury’s consideration where those facts are relevant 

to the issues at hand and form part of the history and 

natural development of the events and offenses for which 

the defendant is charged. Moreover, we have upheld the 

admission of other crimes evidence, when relevant, even 

where the details of the other crime were extremely 

grotesque and highly prejudicial.

Tyson, supra at 360 (quoting Dillon, supra at 367, 925 A.2d at 141). Where 

the Commonwealth seeks to introduce evidence of prior bad acts or other 

crimes in a case based largely upon circumstantial evidence, admission of that

evidence is particularly important. Weakley, supra at 1191. Likewise, the 

Commonwealth’s need to present prior bad acts evidence under the common 

plan exception is greater where the victim’s credibility is undermined at trial. 

See Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa.Super. 1996) (holding 

Commonwealth’s need to present prior bad acts testimony was increased after 

victim’s credibility was “crippled” at trial; at that point, prior bad act testimony 

became more probative than prejudicial). 

“Additionally, when examining the potential for undue prejudice, a 
J-A20032-19

- 17 -

cautionary jury instruction may ameliorate the prejudicial effect of the 

proffered evidence. ... Jurors are presumed to follow the trial court’s 

instructions.” Hairston, supra at 160, 84 A.3d at 666 (holding extraneous 

offense of arson was admissible under Rule 404(b) as res gestae evidence in 

prosecution for murder; trial court’s instruction on how arson evidence should 

be considered minimized likelihood that arson evidence would inflame jury or 

cause it to convict defendant on improper basis). 

Instantly, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with 158 counts of 

various sex offenses in relation to numerous sexual assaults Appellant 

committed on Victim between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016, beginning 

when Victim was 12 years old. These incidents took place in Victim’s home, 

Appellant’s home, Appellant’s truck, a hotel room, and in the woods. Before 

each incident, Appellant isolated Victim in a private area and/or lured her

under false pretenses to take a ride in his car.

The court admitted prior bad acts evidence concerning Appellant’s prior 

sexual assaults on M.V. and A.H., and the record reveals the following factual 

similarities between the current offenses and those prior acts. In each case, 

the victim of Appellant’s actions was an acquaintance or “friend” of Appellant. 

Each victim was a young, teenage girl between the ages of 12 and 15 when 

the abuse began. In each case, Appellant found ways to isolate his victim. 

Appellant’s “weapon” in each case was his mind and body, which he used to 

manipulate, prey on, and sexually assault the victims. The ostensible purpose 
J-A20032-19

- 18 -

of Appellant’s acts was sexual gratification. Thus, the nature of the victims, 

the manner Appellant used to commit those acts, the “weapons” used to 

commit those acts, and the ostensible purpose of the acts are nearly identical 

to the present case. See Tyson, supra; Weakley, supra. Thus, the 

Commonwealth’s proposed evidence was relevant to demonstrate a common 

plan or scheme under Rule 404. See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2); Tyson, supra;

G.D.M., Sr., supra. 

Additionally, the prior bad acts evidence was not too remote to negate 

its probative value. Appellant sexually assaulted A.H. three times between 

September 1, 1999 and November 26, 1999, and sexually assaulted M.V. 

twice between November 1, 1999 and January 28, 2000. Appellant’s assaults 

on Victim occurred between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016. Importantly, 

the record shows Appellant was in prison from approximately March 28, 2000 

to December 4, 2006. Appellant’s assaults against Victim began within a 

month of Appellant’s release from prison. Excluding Appellant’s period of 

incarceration from the “look back” calculation, less than one year elapsed 

between Appellant’s assaults on A.H. and M.V., and Appellant’s assaults on 

Victim. Any lapse in time is certainly not “excessive” under these 

circumstances. See Tyson, supra; O’Brien, supra. 

Further, the probative value of the evidence of Appellant’s prior bad acts 

outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice. Appellant’s prior bad acts should 

not be shielded from the factfinder merely because they are harmful to 
J-A20032-19

- 19 -

Appellant; the question is whether evidence of his prior bad acts would be 

unfairly prejudicial. See Dillon, supra; Tyson, supra. Evidence of 

Appellant’s prior bad acts was particularly important in this case because the 

Commonwealth’s evidence relied largely on Victim’s testimony, which 

Appellant ferociously attacked at trial. The Commonwealth lacked forensic 

evidence to corroborate Victim’s testimony. Appellant testified in his defense 

and flatly denied all allegations, essentially leaving the jurors with a “he 

said/she said” scenario. See Weakley, supra. As well, Appellant explored 

the relationship between Victim and the Beck family at length at trial in an 

effort to undermine Victim’s credibility and demonstrate her motive to 

fabricate her allegations. See Luktisch, supra.

Moreover, the court issued a cautionary instruction to the jury regarding 

the limited purpose of the evidence and clarified that the jury could not treat 

the prior bad acts as proof of Appellant’s bad character or criminal tendencies. 

See Hairston, supra. We can presume the jurors followed the trial court’s 

instructions. See id. Under these circumstances, Appellant’s second issue 

merits no relief. We see no basis to call the verdict into question. Accordingly, 

we affirm.
J-A20032-19

- 20 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/25/2019