J. S 17 0 43 /20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA v. : : W.A.

- T. , : No. 1514 M DA 20 19 : Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 26, 2019,

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No. CP

- 67

- CR

- 0000528

- 2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., AND FORD ELLIOT T, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 12, 2020
W.A.

- T

. appeals the August 26, 2019 judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, after a jury convicted him of aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault , and corruption of minors. 1 The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of incarceration of three
to six years , followed by five years ’ probation

. We affirm. As gleaned from th e record, the relevant facts are as follows: At the time of the sexual assaults, the victim , age ten , was living wi th her mother, appellant (victim ’ s stepfather ), and her younger brothers. (Notes of testimony , 5/14/19 at 124, 158

. ) The victim testified to several incidents

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3125(a)(7), 3126(a)(7), and 6301(a)(1)(ii) , respectively. Appellant was found not guilty of rape and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, person less than 13 years of age, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(c) and 3123(b), respectively.J . S17 0 43 /20

- 2

-

where she was inappropriately touched by ap pellant when her mother was away from the home

. ( Id. at 125

- 134

. ) The victim did not immediately tell anyone because she thought she would not be believed and she was afraid her brothers would be taken away. ( Id. at 134, 135

. ) On July 3 , 2017,
two days after the most recent incident, the victim told her step mother. ( Id. at 158, 159 .) On t he same date, the victim ’ s stepmother and her father took her to York Hospital. ( Id. at 166 .) On July 19, 2 017, the victim ’ s stepmother and father took her to the
C hildren ’ s Advocacy Center for a follow

- up examination and interview

. ( Id.
at 169, 196 .) There, the victim ’ s father made a statement to the sexual assault forensic examination ( “ SAFE ” ) nurse that “ [the victim ’ s] lying is out of hand, like talking to a wall. ” ( Id. at 196 .)
A ppellant sought to introduce father ’ s statement to the SAFE nurse as an exception to the hearsay rule, statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 803(4)(B)

. ( Notes of testimony , 5/14/19 at 195

- 202 .) The trial court ruled that the exception did not apply

. ( Id. at 202 .) Following his conviction and imposition of sentence, appellant did not file post

- sentence motions

. Rather, a ppellant timely appealed

. On September 17, 2019, t he trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

. Appellant timely complied

. Thereafter, the trial court filed its
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.J . S17 0 43 /20

- 3

-

The sole issu e raised by appellant is as follows: Whether the [ ] t rial c ourt erred in not permitting [appellant ’ s ] c ounsel to admit into evidence statements made by the alleged victim ’ s father to the SAFE n urse that the alleged victim ’ s lying was “ out of hand [, ” ] said statements being made in gathering information for purpose(s) of the medical examination pursuant to Rule 803(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence [?] Appellant ’ s brief at 4 ( full capitalization and bold ing omitted). In reviewing evidentiary rul ings: The admission of evidence is commit t ed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a trial court ’ s ruling regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill

- will, or such lack of support to be clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Cosby , 224 A.3d 372 , 397 (Pa.Super. 2019 ) (citation omitted). The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence define hearsay as “ a statement that (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers into evidence to prove the truth of the matt er asserted
in the statement. ” Pa.R.E. 801(c) . “ Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by [the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence], by other rules prescribed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or by statute. ” Pa.R.E. 802

. In order for a hearsay statement to be adm issible, the statement must fall within an exception to the hearsay rule

. See Pa.R.E. 803

- 805.J . S17 0 43 /20

- 4

-

One of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is the medical diagnosis or treatment exception

. Pa.R.E. 803(4)

. A state ment is not excluded by the hear say rule if it :

(A) is made for

-- and is reasonably pertinent to

-- medical treatment or diagnosis in contemplation of treatment; and (B) describes medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment, or diagnosis in contemplation of treatment. Pa.R.E. 803(4).

“ [T] here are essentially two requirements for a statement to come within this exception

. First, the declarant must make th e statement for the purpose of receiving medical treatment , and second, the statement must be necessary and pro per for diagnosis and treatment. ” Commonwealth v.
D.J.A. , 800 A.2d 965, 976 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied , 857 A.2d 677 (Pa. 2004) (citation o mitted). Here, appellant baldly asserts that even though the victim ’ s father was not receiving medical treatment, his statement to the SAFE nurse is admissible because “ the patient ’ s veracity or lack thereof would be relevant for medical personnel to arrive at a proper diagnosis and treatment. ” (Appellant ’ s brief
at 13 .) Appellant fails to support t his claim with legal authority

. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a ) (requiring citation to authorities to support argument )

.

“ When an appellant cites no authority supporting an argument, this C ourt isJ . S17 0 43 /20

- 5

-

inclined to believe there is none. ” Commonwealth v. Reyes - Rodriguez , 111 A.3d 775 , 781 (Pa

. Super. 2015 ) , appeal denied , 123 A.3d 331 ( Pa. 201 5)

. Appellant waiv es this claim on appeal

. See Commonwealth v. Knox , 50 A.3d 732, 748 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied , 69 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2013) (reiterating failure to cite to relevant legal authority to support argument results in waiver).
N otwithstanding waiver, we note that t he stateme nt was not made by the v ictim when she was a patient , but by her f ather

. It was not reas onably pertinent to, nor does it describe, the victim ’ s “ medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment, or diagnosis in contemplation of tre atment. ” Pa.R.E. 803(4)( B)

. As a result, the exception to hearsay set f orth in Pa.R.E. 803(4 ) wa s in applicable

. Moreover, the c redibility of the vi ctim was within the sole province of the jury

. See Commonwealth v. Cramer , 195 A.3d 594, 600

- 601 (Pa.Super. 2018).
T he trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion and , therefore, properly excluded the statement made by the v ictim ’ s father to the SAFE n urse. Judgment of sentenced affirmed.J . S17 0 43 /20

- 6

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 05/12/2020