Opinion ID: 2105037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: admissibility of prior sexual misconduct between the appellee and the victim

Text: The Superior Court held that the appellee had waived the issue of whether prior sexual misconduct by the appellee toward the victim was improperly admitted. In an advisory fashion, that Court then when on to address the substantive issue in order to provide guidance to the trial court upon retrial. Insofar as we disagree with the Superior Court concerning the admissibility of the evidence, we are constrained to address the substance of the issue and need not address whether the issue was waived. The testimony complained about consisted of statements that the appellee watched the victim from a secret, moveable panel in his closet while she showered and that the appellee fondled the victim's breasts while she pretended to be asleep. The Superior Court held that such testimony should be inadmissible upon retrial, stating: Despite the morally repugnant nature of these alleged acts and the crimes for which appellant has been convicted, we are constrained to find that testimony regarding these acts was improperly admitted for the reason that the isolated occurrence of prior misconduct testified to by the victim simply do not constitute a series of acts indicating continuousness of sexual intercourse. Opinion of the Superior Court at page 5, quoting Commonwealth v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 A. 123 (1895). In dissent, Judge Kelly stated that [t]he challenged evidence taken together, and in the context of the charges presented in this case, plainly gave rise to a reasonable inference that appellant was engaged in a continuous and gradually escalating course of sexually exploitive and abusive conduct toward the victim. (Emphasis in original). We agree with the position articulated by Judge Kelly. In Bell, the Supreme Court held that evidence of illicit relations between the parties, even beyond the statute of limitations, was admissible if it is one of a series of acts indicating continuousness of sexual intercourse. 166 Pa. at 412, 31 A. at 124. The Superior Court on numerous occasions has admitted testimony concerning prior sexual misconduct of a defendant toward a victim. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Leppard, 271 Pa.Super. 317, 413 A.2d 424 (1979); Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 343 Pa.Super. 486, 495 A.2d 569 (1985); Commonwealth v. McClucas, 357 Pa.Super. 449, 516 A.2d 68 (1986). We do not believe that the appellee had to engage in the same, exact sexual misconduct for which he was charged in order for the testimony to be admissible. Rather, the testimony concerning his misconduct was admissible to show that the appellee's sexual misconduct was of a continuing and escalating nature. McCormick on Evidence states that prior sexual misconduct with the victim is admissible [t]o show a passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with the particular person concerned in the crime on trial. McCormick, Evidence § 190, at 449 (2d ed. 1972). The Courts of the Commonwealth have previously relied on this section of that treatise as authoritative. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Claypool, 508 Pa. 198, 204, n. 2, 495 A.2d 176, 179, n. 2 (1985); Commonwealth v. Buser, 277 Pa.Super. 451, 454, 419 A.2d 1233, 1235 (1980). We hold that the testimony in question shows a passion or propensity for illicit sexual relations with the victim and conclude that the evidence is admissible upon retrial. The decision of the Superior Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the case is remanded to the trial court for retrial consistent with this opinion. McDERMOTT, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion. LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which PAPADAKOS, J., joins.