Court Opinion

ID: 9372450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 17:07:30.587197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.547959
License: Public Domain

J-A26027-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    MARQUIS THOMAS                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :       No. 17 EDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 28, 2021
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004273-2019

BEFORE:       BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                             FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2023

        Appellant, Marquis Thomas, appeals from the judgment of sentence

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

trial convictions for first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault on

a child less than 13 years old, two counts of simple assault, two counts of

endangering the welfare of a child, and strangulation.1 We affirm.

        In its opinion, the trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case

as follows:

           Appellant’s convictions arose out of the October, 2016 death
           of his girlfriend’s, Pailenn Bunrout’s, four-year-old daughter,
           K.B. In addition, his convictions arose out of the abuse of
           his girlfriend’s then 10-year-old son, D.B. in 2018. In 2019,
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a); 2702(a)(9); 2701(a)(1); 4304(a)(1); and
2718(a)(1), respectively.
J-A26027-22

           D.B. disclosed that Appellant had choked him, and had done
           so several times, and had engaged in other abusive
           behaviors. At the time of the respective crimes, Appellant
           was living with his girlfriend, her children, K.B. and D.B.,
           and a child they shared together, K.T. K.B. and D.B.
           thought of Appellant as their father. [Although the cause of
           K.B.’s death was initially ruled “undetermined,” after D.B.
           sustained injuries in 2018 similar to injuries K.B. had
           presented with shortly before her death in 2016, police
           began to reinvestigate the circumstances of K.B.’s death].

           At trial, the defense asserted that K.B.’s cause of death was
           undetermined as reported by the Montgomery County
           Coroner’s Office in its autopsy report, and the constellation
           of injuries that were found on her both externally and
           internally were likely caused by strenuous and improper
           resuscitation efforts as suggested by the autopsy report. In
           defense of the abuse to D.B., it was asserted that D.B.’s
           February 9, 2019 disclosure and his trial testimony were not
           credible.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed February 16, 2022, at 1-2).2

        On October 28, 2021, a jury convicted Appellant of the above-mentioned

offenses. Appellant proceeded immediately to sentencing, at which time the

court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and

imposed lesser sentences for some of the other offenses.             On Monday,

November 8, 2021, Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions, which the

court denied the next day.          Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on

December 9, 2021. On December 16, 2021, the court ordered Appellant to

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant complied on January 6, 2022.

____________________________________________

2   For a more detailed recitation of the facts of this case, see id. at 2-27.

                                           -2-
J-A26027-22

     Appellant raises eight issues for our review:

        1) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s post-
        sentence motion for a judgment of acquittal as to murder of
        the first degree in that:

           A.    The Commonwealth failed to present evidence
           that Appellant acted with the specific intent to kill; and

           B.    The Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that
           the decedent was in the sole care and custody of
           Appellant?

        2) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s post-
        sentence motion for a new trial as the verdict was against
        the weight of the evidence where the Commonwealth’s case
        was riddled with inconsistencies and defied common sense
        as to the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly
        sustained by the two children?

        3) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant an opportunity
        to proceed to a hearing challenging the competency of a
        child witness for taint?

        4) Did the trial court err in admitting child hearsay pursuant
        to the tender years exception?

        5) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion for a
        mistrial for a discovery violation where the child complaining
        witness disclosed additional facts to the Commonwealth
        during trial preparations and the Commonwealth failed to
        disclose this new information to Appellant prior to that
        witness’s testimony?

        6) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion for a
        continuance where a pediatric pathologist became
        unavailable to testify?

        7) Did the trial court err in admitting autopsy photographs
        of the four-year-old decedent?

        8) Did the trial court err in declining to read the proposed
        voir dire questions to the jury panel regarding the nature of
        the offenses and the autopsy photographs of the four-year-

                                     -3-
J-A26027-22

         old decedent to determine if potential jurors could set aside
         their passions and determine the matter based on the
         evidence presented?

(Appellant’s Brief at 6-7).

      After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the

relevant law, we agree with the trial court’s thorough legal analysis as set

forth in the trial court’s opinion.    (See Trial Court Opinion at 29-64).

Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s reasoning as our own.

      Specifically, the trial court evaluated each of Appellant’s issues on

appeal as follows. With respect to Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence, the Commonwealth’s forensic pathology expert, Dr. Gulino,

opined that K.B. died from blunt impact trauma associated with strangulation,

and the manner of death was homicide. Dr. Gulino expressly rejected the

defense theory that K.B.’s injuries were a result of Appellant’s efforts at CPR.

Additionally, the Commonwealth’s pediatric child abuse expert, Dr. Christian,

opined that K.B. was severely beaten and that she died of trauma.           Dr.

Christian categorically denied that K.B.’s injuries could have been caused by

CPR. In sum, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Appellant

possessed the intent to kill by using deadly force on K.B. Further, the evidence

established that Appellant and the children were the only people in the home

when K.B. suffered the fatal injuries. Thus, the jury properly concluded that

K.B. was in the sole and exclusive custody of Appellant when she died, such

that the “sole and exclusive custody” inference of guilt applied. (See id. at

                                      -4-
J-A26027-22

29-36).

       Regarding Appellant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence, the court

rejected Appellant’s claim that the testimony was “riddled with inconsistencies

and defied common sense as to the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly

sustained by the two children.” Rather, the testimony of Dr. Christian and Dr.

Gulino was credible and credited by the jury. The jury was free to credit the

testimony of the Commonwealth’s experts and to reject the testimony of Dr.

Hamel, who had performed the autopsy on K.B. and opined that the injuries

could have been caused by CPR. Additionally, D.B.’s disclosures regarding the

abuse he sustained by Appellant were consistent with his injuries. (Id.at 36-

39).

       Concerning Appellant’s claim that the court erred in denying him a

competency hearing for D.B., Appellant bore the burden of establishing “some

evidence” of taint to warrant a hearing.      Here, D.B. made his disclosure

regarding abuse to a Department of Human Services (“DHS”) caseworker

while he was living at his maternal grandmother’s home and was no longer

living with Appellant, which helped explain D.B.’s belated disclosure. The fact

that Appellant was seeking sole custody of another child he shared with Ms.

Bunrout did not, on its own, support a hostile motive on Ms. Bunrout’s part to

coach D.B. Under the circumstances, Appellant did not satisfy his burden to

warrant a taint hearing. (Id. at 39-42).

       With respect to Appellant’s challenge to application of the Tender Years

                                     -5-
J-A26027-22

exception to the hearsay rule, although D.B. provided differing statements in

2018 and 2019, this is attributable to a change in his circumstances, as D.B.

was no longer living with Appellant when he disclosed the abuse. D.B.’s 2019

disclosure to his mother was consistent with his 2019 disclosure to a forensic

interviewer.   D.B. had no motive to fabricate an abuse allegation against

Appellant, who D.B. considered his father. The court listened to the credible

testimony of Ms. Bunrout, the DHS caseworker to whom D.B. disclosed, and

D.B.’s in camera testimony. Ultimately, the court decided the content and

circumstances of D.B.’s statements provided a sufficient indicia of reliability to

satisfy the Tender Years exception. (Id. at 42-48).

      Regarding Appellant’s claim that the court should have declared a

mistrial, Appellant complains that D.B. disclosed an additional fact during his

trial testimony—stating that he had “passed out” from Appellant’s prior

abuse—that was not previously shared with Appellant.           Nevertheless, any

discovery violation here did not impact Appellant’s cross-examination of the

Commonwealth’s      expert,   Dr.   Christian,   concerning   the   mechanics   of

strangulation. Further, the testimony of passing out was within the context

of what was being described in all materials previously provided to the

defense, even though the exact words “passed out” had not been used before.

(Id. at 48-52).

      Concerning the court’s denial of Appellant’s continuance request,

Appellant’s expert pediatric pathologist initially indicated that she would be

                                       -6-
J-A26027-22

available for trial.    Prior to trial, however, the pathologist said she had a

“health” issue, and she no longer wished to participate.            The court denied

Appellant’s request for a continuance because the pathologist who performed

the autopsy was testifying, and Appellant could cross-examine this witness

about the cause of death.             The court emphasized that the person who

performed the autopsy was in the best position to testify about K.B.’s cause

of   death.      Additionally,    a    continuance   would   have    prejudiced   the

Commonwealth, where one of the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses had to

fly from overseas to attend trial, and multiple other witnesses were flying from

out of state and arriving the day Appellant requested the continuance.3

Further, the defense had not identified a specific expert to retain and it was

speculative whether Appellant could even obtain such an expert witness to

support the defense theory of the case. (Id. at 52-56).

       With respect to Appellant’s challenge to the court’s admission of K.B.’s

autopsy photographs, the court deemed such photos necessary to establish

the cause and manner of death and for the Commonwealth’s expert to explain

his opinion. The court determined that the probative value of the photographs

outweighed prejudicial impact. Additionally, the court allowed the autopsy

photographs to be shown to the jury for seconds, not minutes. Further, the

____________________________________________

3 We note that Appellant moved for a continuance only five days prior to the
start of trial, even though defense counsel had known for several weeks that
his proffered expert was no longer willing to testify. Further, trial had already
been continued once before as a result of the pandemic.

                                           -7-
J-A26027-22

court provided multiple cautionary instructions. (Id. at 56-61).

       Finally, as to Appellant’s challenge to the denial of proposed voir dire,

Appellant’s proposed question with respect to the autopsy photographs of a

child did not relate to whether a prospective juror could render a fair and

impartial verdict based on a fixed opinion or bias. Consequently, the rejected

question was irrelevant to the legitimate purposes of voir dire.4 (Id. at 61-

64).

       The record supports the court’s sound analysis regarding each issue

presented on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s

opinion.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 On appeal, Appellant also complains the court rejected proposed voir dire
questions concerning the allegations in the case and the ages of the victims.
Nevertheless, Appellant fails to specify in his brief the place in the record
where the court denied this proposed voir dire question. Our review of the
record suggests that the parties had a discussion off the record regarding
Appellant’s proposed voir dire. The record further indicates that the voir dire
of prospective jurors was not transcribed. (See N.T. Trial, 10/25/21, at 10).
Following voir dire of the jurors, however, Appellant renewed on the record
his request for a proposed question with respect only to the autopsy
photographs. The court denied Appellant’s request, stating that the court
would repeat cautionary instructions to the jury when the photographs were
shown. (Id. at 48-49). Under these circumstances, to the extent that
Appellant now complains the court improperly denied his proposed voir dire
regarding questions about the nature of the allegations in the case and the
ages of the victims, we deem those sub-issues waived. See Commonwealth
v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387 (Pa.Super. 2009) (stating when allegation is
unsupported by citation to record such that this Court is prevented from
assessing issue and determining whether error exists, allegation is waived for
purposes of appeal).

                                           -8-
J-A26027-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/21/2023

                          -9-
                                                                Circulated 02/03/2023 10:59 AM

         IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
                             PENNSYLVANIA
                           CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:                        CP-46-CR-0004273-2019

            V.

MARQUIS LAMONT THOMAS                                 17 EDA 2022               r-...:>
                                                                                ~
                                                                                r-...:>
                                                                                r-...:>
                                                                                "Tf
                                                                                f'T'1
                                                                                co

                                1925(a) OPINION

CARPENTER        J.                                  FEBRUARY 16, 2022          :r·
                                                                               Ci)
                                                                               ',N)

                                INTRODUCTION
            Appellant, Marquis Thomas, appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed on qctober 28, 2021, after a jury found him guilty of first-

degree murder, aggravated assault, simple assault - under age of 12,

endangering the welfare of a child - course of conduct, strangulation -

family /household member, aggravated assault, simple assault - under age of

12, and endangering the welfare of a child - course of conduct. Appellant's

convictions arose out of the October, 2016 death of his girlfriend's, Pailenn

Bunrout, four-year-old daughter, K.B. In addition, his convictions arose out of

the abuse of his girlfriend's then 10-year-old son, D.B. in 2018. In 2019, D.B.,

disclosed that Appellant had choked him, and had done so several times, and

had engaged in other abusive behaviors. At the time of the respective crimes,

Appellant was living with his girlfriend, her children, K.B. and D.B., and a child

they shared together, K.T. K.B. and D.B. thought of Appellant as their father.
            At trial, the defense asserted that K.B. 's cause of death was

undetermined as reported by the Montgomery County Coroner's Office in its

autopsy report, and the constellation of injuries that were found on her both

externally and internally were likely caused by strenuous and improper

resuscitation efforts as suggested by the autopsy report. In defense of the

abuse to D.B., it was asserted that D.B.'S February 9, 2019, disclosure and his

trial testimony were not credible.

            On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as

to his conviction for first-degree murder; the weight of the evidence; the denial

of a taint hearing; the admission of child hearsay under the Tender Years Act;

the denial of a mistrial based upon an alleged discovery violation; the denial of

a continuance request when the defense's pediatric pathologist became

unavailable to testify; the admission of K.B. 's autopsy photographs; and the

rejection of a proposed voir dire question regarding the autopsy photographs.

Based upon the analysis as set forth herein, this Court respectfully suggests

that these issues lack merit and that Appellant's judgment of sentence be

affirmed.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
            On October 18, 2016, at about 7:51 a.m., Sergeant Geoffrey

Wainwright, a veteran police officer with the Towamencin Police Department,

received a 9-1-1 call to respond to Forge Gate Apartments at 1141 Snyder

Road, Apartment 1-16. Towamencin, Montgomery County. (N.T., Jury Trial,

10/25/21, p. 51, 52 - 53). The call was for an unresponsive four-year-old with

                                        2
CPR in progress by someone on the scene. Id. at 53. Sergeant Wainwright and

another officer responded within minutes at 7:53 a.m. Id. At the scene he saw a

child on the floor, completely limp, and after finding no pulse he administered

CPR. Id. at 56. When the other officer set up an AED, automatic external

defibrillator 1 , and he cut_ off the child's shirt to attach the electrodes, Sergeant

Wainwright observed that the child had pronounced bruising on her lower

abdomen, lower chest and abdomen. Id. at 56, 60.

              Officer Wainwright testified that he ha~ been extensively trained in

pediatric CPR, which is what he used. Id. at 57, 58. He explained that using

pediatric CPR he was careful not to compress K.B.'s chest cavity too far because

a toddler requires less pressure than an adult, and that you don't want to cause

damage. Id. at 58. After a short time, paramedics arrived and carried her to the

ambulance. Id. at 59. While the paramedics worked on her, he took several

pictures of K.B.'s bruises. Id. at 60.

               Richard Roberts, an experienced EMT and assistant chief of the

Volunteer Medical Service Corp ("VMSC") of Lansdale, also responded to the

scene. Id. at 180 - 181, 183. He arrived at about 7:55 a.m., and got the child

into the ambulance and started pediatric CPR, performing chest compression

to her mid-sternum line. Id. at 183, 184, 186. When he was performing CPR he

observed pre-existing trauma, namely bruising to the abdomen. Id. at 185,

186.

        There are electrodes that monitor cardiac activity on two sticky plastic pads that adhere
to the skin, which then can determine cardiac activity. (N.T., Jury Trial, 10/25/21, p. 56).

                                                3
                Cindy Christian, M.D., a professor at the Pearlman School of

Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a pediatrician at Children's

Hospital of Philadelphia ("CHOP"), was accepted as an expert in general

pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics. Id. at 70, 82 - 83. On September 15,

2018, Dr. Christina testified that D.B. was admitted to .CHOP, upon referral for

an evaluation. Id. at 92. That morning D.B. woke up with severe

subconjunctival hemorrhages in both of his eyes, whereby the whites of his

eyes were filled with blood, and a bruise under an eye in association with that

bleeding. Id.

                When D.J~. was admitted to the hospital, the child protection team

at CHOP learned that D.B.'s sister, K.B., who had also been seen by the child

protection team a few years earlier also presenting with significant

subconjunctival hemorrhages died about a month and a half later. Id. at 92,

93. The child protection team also learned that K.B. died suddenly in her sleep,

and that her cause of death was undetermined. Id. at 93. Based on this

information, the team requested a copy of K.B. 's autopsy report from the

Medical Examiner's Office in Montgomery County. Id.

                Dr. Christian was shocked when she. read the report to see that

K.B.'s cause of death was recorded as undetermined based upon all of the

injuries that the report documented. Id. at 94. K.B. was noted to have

multiple severe injuries to her skin, her conjunctiva, to her heart, and to her

liver. Id. There was evidence of two healing rib fractures, severe bruising to her

chest and abdomen, and enormous amounts of blood in her chest cavity and

                                           4
blood in her abdominal cavity. Id. The doctor opined that these injuries were

the result of trauma and not from CPR. Id.

               After all of this information came to light, the Montgomery County

District Attorney's Office requested that Dr. Christian review investigative and

medical material in connection with K.B. and D.B. 's injuries. Id. at 95. Based

upon her review, Dr. Christian opined that K.B's injuries sustained in

September of 2016 were the result of child physical abuse, and that her death

was a result of severe inflicted trauma and physical abuse. Id. As to D.B's

injuries that were documented at CHOP in September of 2018, the doctor

opined that they were the result of child physical abuse. Id.

               Specifically, as to K.B., Dr. Christian described K.B. as generally a

healthy child. Id. at 102. °According to K.B.'s medical records, she had a history

of G6PD deficiency2 , a benign condition in K.B.'s case; eczema; and asthma. Id.

at 103, 104. The doctor stated that the G6PD deficiency does not cause

bleeding or bruising. Id. at 104. K.B. had also underwent a tonsillectomy and

adenoidectomy, which is significant for the fact that there were no bleeding

issues related to that surgery. Id. at 104 - 105. Based upon this, the doctor

ruled out a bruising or bleeding disorder as a cause of the significant bruising

to her abdominal wall, her chest, and her extremities that was found at that

time of her death. . -Id. at 105 .

2       Doctor Christina described G6PD deficiency as a fairly common red blood cell enzyme
deficiency, and that most of the time children with this deficiency are perfectly fine. (N.T., Jury
Trial, 10/25/21, pp. 102 - 103).

                                                 5
            Dr. Christian, described K.B.'s visit to CHOP in September of 2016,

and detailed the findings from that hospital visit. On September 4, 2016, K.B.

was admitted to CHOP because she woke up the previous morning with

subconjunctival hemorrhages, and a little bruising underneath the eye. Id. She

had been referred to CHOP by Grandview Hospital for the evaluation of

suspected child abuse. Id.

            Once at CHOP, K.B.'s history was taken. Id. at 106 - 107. K.B. was

nonverbal, and her examination revealed that she had symmetrical bite marks

on her tongue, that were beginning to heal, and blisters thought to be from

biting her tongue. Id. at 107, 108. She had the subconjunctival hemorrhage of

the eyes, with   ~   purple bruise under the left eye. Id. at 108. K.B.'s skin had

multiple linear hyper- and hypopigmented injuries on her abdomen around her

belly button. Id. at 108 - 109. Her back had a vertical, healed hyperpigmented

scar spanning the length between her shoulder blades. Id. at 109. In the

middle of her lower back she had very thickened skin with scabbing. Id. There

were four linear lines of hypermigmented, dark colored, parallel marks on her

right flank. Id. Imaging studies of K.B. showed that she had a healing posterior

rib fracture of the right seventh rib and the left anterolateral with callous,

meaning that those injuries were healing and were weeks old and not brand

new. Id. Bas~d upon a review of K.B. 's medical records, the doctor's diagnosis

was that she was a victim of physical abuse and repeated injury. Id.

             Dr. Christina summarized K.B.'s injuries this way: K.B. had a new

injuries, subconjunctival hemorrhages, and biting of her tongue; and she had

                                            6
old injuries, she had scars around her torso, scars on her back and two healing

rib fractures. Id. K.B's injuries were also found in multiple organ systems - her

skin had injury, her bones had injury, her eyes had injury, and her mouth had

injury. Id. at 110. Further, K.B. had unusual injuries - such as those to her

tongue and patterned injuries, such as the parallel lines on her back. Id. at

111. The doctor opined that this constellation of injuries are not what they see

in active children who have accidental trauma. Id. at 110. She further

explained that the subconjunctival hemorrhage, which was pretty significant

bleeding in K.B.'s case, can either been from direct blunt trauma to the eye or

from Valsalva trauma, the kind of trauma that results from significant

increased pressure of the eye that causes pop vessels to pop. Id. at 111. The

doctor opined that that kind of pressure can come from strangulation or severe

chest compressions. Id. In 2016, the opinion of the child protection team was

that these injuries were concerning for child abuse, specifically the rib

fractures which are very unusual in healthy four-year-olds. Id. at 112.

             Dr. Christian discounted that the subconjunctival hemorrhages

could have been caused by vomiting based upon the extensive nature of blood

in her eyes. Id. at 115. _In addition, the doctor testified that the bilateral nature

of the subconjunctival hemorrhage indicated that it was not caused by blunt

impact injury to both eyes, but rather from caused by severe compression,

either of her neck or severe compression of her chest. Id. at 116 - 117.

             Dr. Christian explained that the injuries to K.B. 's tongue were

most likely that K.B. bit on her tongue. Id. at 118. And those to her flank, the

                                          7
linear parallel lines, were most likely caused by the child being struck with

something that was the width of those marks. Id. at 119. The doctor described

the likely mechanism of the rib fractures, either that K.B. might have been

severely squeezed, as if someone had sat on her or crushed her in some way, or

from blunt impact to those ribs. Id. at 120. She opined that in children these

kinds of fractures are usually due to severe squeezing. Id. Again, the doctor

discounted that these rib fractures could have been a result of K.B. falling off a

bunk bed. Id. at 120 - 121.

              About six weeks after K.B. was discharged from the hospital, she

died on October 18, 2016. Id. at 121 - 122. Dr. Christian reviewed K.B.'s

autopsy, and her opinion was that she was severely beaten and that she died of

trauma. Id. at 122. She categorically denied that the injuries she saw

documented in K.B.'s autopsy could have been caused by CPR. Id. at 123. She

stated that in her experience, throughout her whole career, and education she

has, "[n]ever ever" seen these kind of injuries caused by CPR. Id. at 123. In

fact, she stated that the vast majority of children who undergo CPR have zero

injuries. Id. at 124. That's based on her personal experience and what is

documented in the medical literature, that maybe one percent of children who

undergo CPR have injuries from CPR, and if they do, they will have a single

injury. Id.

              D.B. was also evaluated at CHOP in September of 2016, at the

same time of K.B.'s evaluation, based upon a concern that K.B. was a victim of

                                         8
child abuse. Id. at 125. He was seen and he did not have significant injuries, so

he was discharged. Id.

            Around the time of September 15, 2018; when D.B. presented at

CHOP with the same subconjunctival hemorrhages as his sister about two

years earlier, D.B. was detailed as having a G6PD deficiency, eczema, asthma,

and a benign heart murmur. Id. at 127 - 128. On September 15, 2018, he was

seen at CHOP because he woke up in the morning with severe subconjunctival

hemorrhages in both eyes. Id. at 128. It was documented that the entirety of

the whites of his eyes were completely bloody. Id. at 129, 131. Dr. Christian

testified that in her experience in evaluating thousands of children she had

never seen subconjunctival hemorrhages that were that severe. Id. at 132. Dr.

Christian opined that the mechanism that caused it was severe Valsalva, i.e.,

pressure, consistent with some kind of severe compression, strangulation or

asphyxiation. Id. The doctor further testified that while at CHOP, D.B. was

screened by multiple consultants, and they found no medical disease that

explained the bleeding in his eyes. Id. at 133. They even tested him for things

they didn't really think he had, just to be sure he didn't suffer from any of

them. Id. at 134. They wanted to rule everything out. Id. D.B.'s mother did not

agree with the diagnosis of non-accidental trauma/ child abuse, so she had

taken him to Cincinnati Hospital, and there they did not think that there was

anything else they would recommend as part of an evaluation for him. Id. at

134. It was their opinion that there was no need for additional testing for a

medical cause. Id.

                                        9
             Dr. Christian testified as to asphyxiation. Id. at 134 - 135. She

explained that there are multiple ways to prevent people from getting oxygen to

their bodies such as suffocation by putting a pillow over someone's head or a

chokehold with an arm around a neck. Id. at 136. More specifically, the doctor

explained that strangulation is a form of asphyxiation, and that it can cause

subconjunctival hemorrhages. Id. at 138. It can also cause petechiae, which

are small broken blood vessels in the skin. Id.

             Dr. Christian discussed the similarities between some of the

injuries K.B. sustained to the injuries that D.B. presented with in 2018, and

the significance of these similarities. Id. at 138 - 139. First, she said that they

both had really rare findings, which suggested that similar things happened to

both of them that caused these findings. Id. at 139. Additionally, the doctor

testified to the disclosures that D.B. later made in February of 2019, about the

abuse was consistent with his injuries, specifically that he couldn't breathe

and he was being held in a chokehold. Id. at 140.

             On the second day of trial, the Commonwealth presented the

testimony of D.B. At the time of trial he was 11 years old. (N.T, Jury Trial,

10/26/21, p. 11, 12). He was currently living outside of Pennsylvania with his

grandparents and his younger sister. Id. at 12. He testified that he used to

have another sister, K.B., who died when she was four years old. Id. at 13. He

was in court because Appellant, who he used to call "dad", hit him more than

once. Id. at 15 - 16. At some point he told his mom. Id. at 16. D.B. recalled

that when he told his mom, he was in his room, and that his mother was
shocked. Id. at 17. When his mom came to talk to him, that although he did

not remember her exact words, he remembered that his mother asked him if

Appellant hit him and he responded that he had. Id. at 19. He was nervous

telling her, but relieved once he did. Id. After he told his mother, they went to

the police department. Id. at 19 - 20. When they got there, he was with his

grandmother and his mother went to a separate room. Id. at 20. D.B. testified

that no one asked him any questions at that time. Id. The next day, he

remembered going to Mission Kids where he spoke to Ms. Maggie. Id. There he

told her that Appellant had hurt him. Id.

            In the house he lived in with his mom, K.T, and Appellant,

Appellant had hurt him, and it happened in the living room and it was usually

at night when his mom and K.T. were sleeping. Id. at 23 - 24. Appellant put

him arm around D.B.'s neck in a chokehold position. Id. at 25. D.B. described

that Appellant would push him over so he would be face down on the couch

and then put him in a chokehold position. Id. at 25 - 26. It would hurt and

D.B. would be unable to breathe. Id. at 25. D.B. explained that it would feel a

lot of pressure in his head and that he would pass out. Id. at 26. D.B.

described other instances of abuse where at other times, Appellant would make

him sit with his back against the wall and pretend he was sitting on a chair for

a long period of time. Id. at 27. D.B. testified that his body would burn and

shake. Id. Appellant would also make D.B. balance on his head, which gave

headaches and would hurt. Id. at 28. D.B. was forced to do pushups, which left

                                         11
D.B. feeling sore. Id. at 30. Appellant told D.B. that his mother told Appellant

to do this to him. Id. at 31.

             D.B. testified about the most recent hospital visit when his eyes

were red. Id. at 32. D.B. explained that the night before he was face down on

the couch, and Appellant put his arm around his neck. Id. at 32, 34. It made

his body feel very hot. Id. at 34. The next thing that D.B. knew was that he

woke up in his bed. Id. His head was hurting very bad and his eyes were red

and hurting. Id. at 35. The next morning, Appellant woke up D.B. and saw his

eyes were red, and Appellant called his mom. Id. at 36. D.B. was scared of

dying because the same thing happened to his sister, K.B. Id. at 36 - 37.

Appellant told D.B. not to say anything, which he understood Appellant to

mean about the night before. Id.· at 37. At the hospital he spoke to Ms. Maggie,

but he did not tell her what Appellant had done. Id. at 37 - 38. He also did not

say anything to his mom because he was nervous. Id. at 38.

             K.B.'s and D.B.'s mom, Painlenn Bunrout, testified that back in

September of 2016, she was in a relationship with Appellant, and had been

since 2014. Id. at 79 - 80. Appellant was not a biological father to either K.B.

or D.B. Id. at 81. On September 2, 2016, Ms. Bunrout recalled that she was

working as the bakery manager at a local supermarket. Id. at 83. At around

8: 12 a.m., she received a text from Appellant about K.B.'s eyes. Id. at 84, 85.

Ms. Bunrout took K.B. to her doctor immediately, who told her that it looked

like abuse. Id. at 88 - 89. Ms. Bunrout did not believe that, because she

couldn't imagine anyone would hurt her kids. Id. at 89 - 90. Text messages

                                        12
between Ms. Bunrout and Appellant reveal that Appellant was concerned that

he would be suspected of abuse. Id. at 92.

            Ms. Bunrout took K.B. to CHOP where they performed additional

tests. Id. at 93. She was told that the red eyes could be from asphyxiation and

that she was being abused, which Ms. Bunrout did not believe. Id. at 93, 94.

After K.B. was discharged from CHOP, there was a safety plan put in place,

whereby she and Appellant were not permitted to see the kids without

supervision. Id. at 94. This plan lasted only several weeks. Id. Ms. Bunrout was

concerned about K.B.'s health and feared that she was slowly dying. Id. at 107

- 108. However, she was scared to get a second opinion out of fear her kids

would be taken away. Id. at 106.

            Ms. Bunrout testified about the night before October 18, 2016,

when she had given K.B. a bath, K.B. did not have any bruising. Id. at 110 -·

11. And because Ms. Bunrout had to be at work early the following day at 4:00

a.m., she went to bed at 9:00 p.m. the night before. Id. at 110 - 111. At about

7:45 a.m. on October 18, 2016, she received a text from Appellant saying, "You

need to come home right now. I can't wake [K.B.] up. I don't' know what to do.

Hurry." Id. at 112. Ms. Bunrout called Appellant, and told him to call 9-1-1. Id.

at 112. She left work and got home about three minutes later, where she saw

K.B. laying in her bed. Id. at 113. She tried to wake her, but she wouldn't wake

up. Id. Ms. Bunrout called 9-1-1, since Appellant had not called. The 9-1-1

operator was directing Appellant how to perform CPR, and Appellant did so on

her mid-chest area. Id. Police arrived quickly. Id. at 115. The police cut off

                                         13
K.B. 's shirt, and Ms. Bunrout saw a bruise on K.B. 's abdomen, that she did not

have the night before. Id.

            Next, Ms. Bunrout testified as to when D.B. woke up with the

subconjunctival hemorrhages. On September 14, 2018, the night before D.B.

woke up with his injury, Ms. Bunrout went to bed about 9:30 p.m. because she

had to be at work the following day at 5:00 or 5:30 a.m. Id. at 117, 118. Both

Appellant and D.B. were still awake. Id. at 117. At about 8:49 a.m., Ms.

Bunrout received a text from Appellant saying, D.B. "busted a vessel in his eyes

or something," and sent her a picture Id. at 119 - 120. Ms. Bunrout thought of

her daughter K.B., because it looked like blood in his eyes. Id. at 120. Ms.

Bunrout was sent to CHOP by her doctor. Id. at 121. At CHOP the doctors told

her that D.B. was being abused. Id. She was in complete disbelief. Id. D.B.

remained hospitalized to be evaluated. Appellan~ denied ever hurting D.B. Id.

at 123. Ms. Bunrout wanted to get a second opinion, so she took D.B. to

Cincinnati Children's Hospital, who ultimately told her to trust the opinion she

received from the CHOP doctors. Id. at 124 - 135.

            Once D.B. was released from CHOP, D.B. went to live with his

maternal grandparents. Id. at 125. Only Ms. Bunrout was permitted supervised

visits. Id. at 124. She would spend her time with D.B. and K.T. every day after

work. Id. at 125. On evening on February 8, 2019, Ms. Bunrout received a call

from Tina Wright who was coming to the house. Id. at 127. Ms. Bunrout

testified that she neither knew Ms. Wright or why she was coming over. Id.

When she arrived, she told Ms. Bunrout that she had received a complaint that

                                        14
the grandparents were coaching the kids. Id. at 128. D.B. was not present

during this conversation, he had gone to his bedroom. Id. at 128. The

conversation between Ms. Bunrout and Ms. Wright lasted about an hour. Id. at

129. After Ms. Wright left, Ms. Bunrout called Deseree, the case worker

assigned to the case at Children and Youth, and discussed Ms. Wright's visit.

Id. Deseree suggested for Ms. Bunrout to ask D.B. about it. Id. at 130. After

this conversation, Ms. Bunrout went to talk to D.B. Id. at 133.

            Ms. Bunrout said to D.B., that if he was telling people his

grandparents were coaching him he should tell mommy. Id. at 134. D.B.

responded with, He did it, and that it was dad. Id. Ms. Bunrout followed up

with, Did what? Id. D.B. demonstrated putting his hands up to his neck like a

choking motion. Id.

            Immediately after this disclosure, Ms. Bunrout went to the police

station with D.B. and her mother to report the incident. Id. at 134 - 135. D.B.

did not give a statement to police, but went the next day to Mission Kids. Id. at

135. As of the time of the trial, Ms. Bunrout had not spoken to D.B. about the

abuse since he disclosed to her. Id. at 137.

             At trial, Deseree Purday, a supervisor with Justice Works,

testified. Id. at 175. Justice Works is a service employed by the Office of

Children and Youth when they need assistance with a family with various

resources or to monitor the safety of the children in the home. Id. On February

8, 2019, she confirmed that she had a conversation with Ms. Bunrout, in

which she suggested to just talk to D.B., to let him know that you're there to

                                        15
help him, protect him, and support him. Id. at 181. About fifteen minutes after

that phone call, Ms. Sunrout called her back, and she was crying. Id. Ms.

Bunrout was very upset. Id. Ms. Purdy advised her to take D.S. and go make a

police report. Id. at 182.

             Detective Kathleen Kelly of the Montgomery County Detective

Bureau - Special Victim's Unit, was assigned to assist Hatfield Police

Department based upon a child line referral filed by medical doctors at CHOP

regarding D.B. on September 18, 2018. Id. at 204 - 205. She was notified that

D.B. was in the hospital with hemorrhaging in his eyes. Id. at 205. And that it

was significant because his sister had similar injuries about a month before

she died in 2016. Id. She also knew that the investigation into K.B.'s death was

closed because it wasn't ruled a homicide. Id. It was ruled undetermined. Id.

The detective's purpose in responding to the hospital was that there was going

to be an emergency forensic interview there. Id. at 206. Detective Kelly was

present for that interview, in a separate room. Id. D.S. did not disclose abuse

during that interview. Id. Later, on February 8 1 2019, the detective did learn

that D.B. disclosed abuse. Based upon this information, she was present when

D.B. was interviewed the second time on February 9, 2019. Id. at 206 - 207.

             Also as a part of this investigation, Detective Kelly reviewed the

download of Appellant's cell phone that was conducted by detectives in 2016,

after K.B. died. Id. at 207. The detective found that the morning K.S. died on

October 18, 2016, Appellant texted Ms. Bunrout around 7:45, 7:44 that he

couldn't wake K.B. up, and that the web history on his phone showed that

                                         16
Appellant had been searching how to perform CPR at about 7:22, 7:21 a.m. Id.

at 207, 210. Specifically, Appellant searched "Sounds when performing CPR" at

7:21 a.m. Id. at 210 - 211. He clicked on a link for "gasping is not breathing"

from the Sarver Heart Center website. Id. at 211. At 7:22 a.m., Appellant

clicked on the link for "CPR steps, performing CPR," from the American Red

Cross. Id. At 7:25 "gurgling during CPR," google search. Id. At 7:25, "lungs

gurgle when doing CPR, doctor answers on Healthcare Magic" and "lungs

gurgle when doing CPR, doctor answers on Healthcare Magic." Id. at 211 - 212.

At 7:25, "CPR classes, don't' be fooled by Agonal breaths." The next item that

the detective found was the text that Appellant sent to Ms. Bunrout at 7:45,

"You need to come home right now. I can't wake [K.B.] up." Id. at 212. Detective

Kelly testified that in her review of Appellant's downloaded phone she did not

find any indication that he called 9-1-1. Id. at 213.

            Maggie Sweeney, currently a forensic interview specialist with the

FBI, previously worked for Mission Kids Child Advocacy Center as a forensic

interviewer and program manager. Id. at 220, 221. Mission Kids is a place

where all of the agencies that are responsible for investigating child abuse can

come together to hear the same thing all at the same time, to obtain a

statement from a child in regards to a child abuse investigation. Id. at 220 -

221. Ms. Sweeney explained that a forensic interviewer is a specially trained

person that can ask questions of a child in a developmentally sensitive way. Id.

at 221. The way that the questions are asked are open-ended, non-leading

questions to elicit the most accurate information form a child. Id. at 221 - 222.

                                        17
            The first time Ms. Sweeney interviewed D.B. was in September of

2016. Id. at 225. In September of 2018, Ms. Sweeney conducted.another

interview with D.B., about different allegations than in 2016. Id. In 2018, it

was an allegation of abuse involving D.B. Id. The interview took place at CHOP.

Id. Dl;lring this interview, D.B. did not disclose any abuse. Id. at 226. On

February 9, 2019, another interview was conducted with D.B. Id. at 226 - 227.

It was conducted because Ms. Sweeney'was informed that there was new

information. Id. at 227. The Commonwealth played the video-recorded relevant

portions of the interview for the jury. Id. at 230, see Exhibit "C-23A."

            On the third day of trial, the Commonwealth called its final

witness, Samuel Gulino, M.D., an expert in forensic pathology. (N.T., Jury

Trial, 10/27 /21, p. 10, 26). Dr. Gulino reviewed the circumstances of K.B.'s

death and the circumstances surrounding the injury to D.B. Id. As part of his

review he read the report that the Montgomery County Coroner's Office

prepared in K.B.'s case. Id. at 27. In particular, he was aware that the doctor

who performed the autopsy on K.B. concluded that the injuries she saw were

largely artifacts of resuscitation. Id. at 28. Dr. Gulino disagreed with that

finding, based upon the types of injuries, the extent of the injuries, and the

number of injuries seen on K.B., that they were not consistent with having

been caused by CPR. Id. at 28.

            The doctor opined that K.B.'s hospital records in September of

2016 were significant for the presence of hemorrhages in the white part of her

eyes, the subconjunctival hemorrhages; bruising of her face; injury to her

                                         18
tongue; two healed fractures; and multiple scars. Id. at 28 - 29. He believed

these to be inflicted injuries. Id. at 29. He explained that these subconjunctival

hemorrhages can be caused in one of two ways. Id. at 30. One is that they can

be caused by a direct blow to the eye, a punch or an object, that can cause

bleeding on the surface of the eye. Id. at 30. They can also be caused by

pressure - of blood being forced back up into the face by constriction around

the neck or around the torso. Id. Dr. Gulino testified that at autopsy the most

common situation that he has seen these types of injuries are in people who

have had some kind of impact trauma such as a motor vehicle accident, people

struck by vehicles, etc. Id. He has also seen them in cases of strangulation,

typically manual strangulation. Id.

            Dr. Gulino rejected the Coroner's autopsy report that K.B.'s

injuries were the result of the artifacts of CPR. In general, Dr. Gulino discussed

resuscitation injuries in children as presented in the medical literature. Id. at

32 - 34. While CPR injuries can occur in children as they do in adults, they are

most commonly found on the skin in places where you're putting your hands to

perform compressions. Id. at 34. Occasionally CPR can result in internal

injuries, including things like rib fractures, although it is far less common in

children than adults. Id. He contrasted this to K.B.'s case, where none of the

medical literature has documented children with multiple injuries of the

severity and type that he saw in K.B. 's case. Id. The doctor explained that

based upon his experience of having examined hundreds of children, and the

collective experience in forensic pathology, he is awa~e of what the patterns of

                                        19
resuscitation injuries are, and when you see injuries outside the established

pattern of what is expected, that raises a red flag that the injuries could be

from something other than CPR. Id. Additionally, as a forensic pathologist he

looks to autopsy evidence that the injuries occurred in some fashion other than

would be consistent with CPR because of their location, because of their

severity, and because of the fact that they had significant internal bleedings

associated with them which you would not see in a child who is dead and had

only having CPR performed on them. Id. Dr. Gulino testified that in his years of

experience he has never seen a case where a child received the constellation of

injuries K.B. received that were caused by CPR. Id. at 37. Nor had he ever seen

such a case in the medical literature that is similar or consistent with K.B.'s

case. Id.

             Dr. Gulino also addressed an aspect of the Montgomery County's

Coroner's report that references Long QT Syndrome. Id. He explained that Long

QT Syndrome is a genetic disease, an electrical abnormality in the heart, which

can only be diagnosed in a living person and can't be seen at an autopsy. Id. at

38. He believed that it was put in the report essentially giving a possibility of

why K.B. might have died because aside from all of her injuries the autopsy

was normal. Id. at 37 - 38. There was no disease identified which would have

caused her death. Id. at 38. He further explained that there is a genetic test

that can be performed with a specimen of blood to diagnose this condition, and

that it should have been done if you are looking for an explanation for death.

Id. at 39.

                                         20
             As to the actual autopsy, Dr. Gulino identified an injury, a ragged

laceration of the inferior vena cava - which is associated with epicardial

hemorrhage. Id. The doctor explained that the inferior vena cava is the large

vein that brings blood back to your heart from the lower half of your body, from

your diaphragm down. Id. at 39 - 40. He further explained that if you have a

great deal of force being applied, you can actually get a tear in this vein right

where it goes into the heart. Id. at 40, 41 - 42. And that is precisely what he

found in K.B. 's autopsy photographs. Id. at 40 - 41. Although not in the

autopsy report, this injury was evident in the photographs. Id. at 42. Dr.

Gulino testified that there is simply no support in the literature or his

experience that this resulted from CPR. Id. at 46. Additionally, the presence of

the hematoma, the collection of blood, on the surface of the liver caused by the

injury, indicates that it occurred during life. Id. at 46

             Dr. Gulino discussed K.B. external injuries, and observed that she

had a number of bruises on her torso and extremities, not only to her chest,

but also to her abdomen and on the sides of her chest; she had

subconjunctival hemorrhages on her right eye; she had petechiae, small

pinpoint hemorrhages of the skin of her face, the linings of her eyelids, and on

the surface of her eye; she also had injuries on her back. Id. at 4 7. As to the

bruising, Dr. Gulino opined that it was the result of blunt impact at the time

she was alive; Id. at 47 - 48. He explained that in order to bleed into the skin,

you have to have a pulse and a blood pressure. CPR is not going to cause

bruising in areas of the side of the abdomen, the leg, and the arm. Id. at 48.

                                         21
             As to K.B. 's internal injuries, Dr. Gulino testified that in addition

to the injury to the inferior vena cava, there was a laceration of the left lobe of

the liver; there were areas of bruising in the intestinal mesentery, which is the

connective tissue that contains all the blood vessels that go to your intestines;

bruising around the pancreas; bruising on the surface of the stomach; and

bruising down on the surface of her urinary bladder. Id. These injuries indicate

that there was force being applied in multiple areas of her abdomen. Id. at 51.

Dr. Gulino opined that these injuries were caused by blunt trauma. Id. He

further explained that the injury to K.B's urinary bladder and the location of

the liver laceration are not indicative of CPR injury. Id. at 51 - 52. K.B. also

had injuries in her chest cavities, including pulmonary contusions, which are

bruising in the lungs caused by trauma. Id. at 53. There was also a laceration

to the right ventricle of the heart. Id. at 54. Dr. Gulino disagreed with the

autopsy report that concluded that the "bloodless nature of the lacerations

show that they were inflicted as a result of prolonged and robust resuscitation

efforts." Id. at 54. He said that that conclusion does not make sense because

there was a large area of bleeding associated with the laceration of the inferior

vena cava; bleeding on the surface of the various organs, including the urinary

bladder and on the surface of the stomach; bleeding into the lungs; and an

epicardial hemorrhage associated with the laceration to the right heart

ventricle. Id. at 54, 55 - 56. The presence of the blood indicates to the doctor

that K.B. was alive at the time these injuries occurred. Id. at 56.

                                         22
            Dr. Gulino found evidence of strangulation. Id. at 58. He noted the

subconjunctival hemorrhage on the surface of the eye, petechiae on the skin of

the face, soft tissue hemorrhages in the neck, in the muscles, and then also in

the deep tissues of the neck near the carotid artery on the right. Id. at 60.

These are consistent with pressure being placed on the neck. Id. Ultimately,

Dr. Gulino concluded that K.B. died as a result of blunt impact trauma

associated with strangulation, and that the manner of death as homicide. Id. at

62, 63. After Dr.'s Gulino's testimony concluded, the Commonwealth rested. Id.

at 95.

            The defense presented the testimony of Marianne Hamel, M.D.,

who was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology. Id. at 107. She conducted

the autopsy of K.B. in the Montgomery County Coroner's Office. Id. at 107 -

108. As part of the autopsy she performed an external examination in which

she found a series of fresh bruises down the front of her chest and abdomen in

the middle. Id. at 111. She also found bruising about K.B. 's jaw and on her

extremities. Id. There was a hemorrhage in one of her eyes and some petechial

hemorrhages of her face. Id. Next, Dr. Hamel conducted an internal

examination where she found several serious injuries. Id. at 11 7. In particular

K.B. had a laceration, a hole or tear in her pericardium, the sack around her

heart, which was about a quarter of ah inch. Id. at 117 - 118. She also found a

tear of her heart valve in the right ventricle. Id. at 118. There was blood around

the cavities around her lungs; bruising of the roots of her lungs; a hemorrhage

of her central diaphragm; a laceration of her liver; blood in her abdominal

                                        23
cavity; diffuse hemorrhage in the soft tissue surrounding where he intestines

are attached; and some hemorrhage of her pancreas and bladder wall. Id. Dr.

Hamel testified that all of these injuries were roughly up and down the middle

of her body. Id. Dr. Hamel detailed various injuries such as tiny punctate

pinpoint area of hemorrhage between her muscles in the muscles between her

ribs, a hemorrhage in a neck muscle on the right and left side. Id. at 119.

            The doctor discussed the laceration to K.B.'s liver. She found it

had a rip on the left lobe. Id. at 120. The laceration was ragged, but she did not

observe any blood with that space. Id. at 121. She further observed "only a

hundred cc's of blood in her abdominal cavity." Id. at 121. It was her opinion

that this was not a very big amount of blood in K.B.'s abdominal cavity, and

the reason for that was that K.B. was already dead when she received that

injury, concluding that the injury was a result of resuscitation efforts. Id. at

121. She explained that had K.B. been alive and received a blow to the

abdomen that caused a two inch laceration to her liver, she would have

expected to have a "belly full of blood." Id. Dr. Hamel discounted the

hemorrhage in the liver that Dr. Gulino observed as having occurred during

life, reasoning that CPR could have restored circulation and simultaneously

caused injury. Id. at 123. She remained adamant in her belief that that injury

was a result of CPR and that K.B. was not alive when that injury was inflicted.

Id. Dr. Hamel also discounted that the injury to K.B. 's vena cava was caused

while she was alive. Although she did not find this injury during her autopsy

and while she did acknowledge that this injury could cause death if a person

                                         24
was alive when such an injury is inflicted, she said that that finding did not

change her opinion that CPR was the cause of K.B.'s observed injuries. Id. at

124 - 125. She believed it to be an insignificant injury. Id. at 124.

            Dr. Hamel continued her testimony and detailed further injury to

K.B.'s such as hemorrhaging around the pancreas, hemorrhaging to the

connective tissue of the intestines where it attaches to the abdominal cavity,

and hemorrhaging to the front of the bladder. Id. at 128. The doctor stated that

the injury to the bladder was unusual because that's not usually a place where

you give CPR. Id. As to the abdominal injuries, Dr. Hamel explained that while

these injuries concerned her because CPR is not performed on this area, but

rather on the chest, it could have been caused by someone panicked and an

inexperienced CPR provider. Id. at 129.

            A neck dissection was also performed by the doctor. This revealed

a tiny hemorrhage on the inside side of the big muscle in the left side of the

neck. Id. at 132. On the other side of K.B.'s neck, Dr. Hamel found that around

the carotid artery there was a diffuse hemorrhage that was outside and in front

of the vessel. Id. Dr. Hamel explained that although she found the hemorrhage

in the right side of K.B. 's neck to be concerning, she discounted that it could

have been caused by strangulation because she would have expected to see

diffuse hemorrhage in the strap muscles on the anterior aspect of the neck, but

she did not observe any injuries to that area. Id. at 136.

            On cross-examination, Dr. Hamel acknowledged, among other

things, that the medical literature reflects that CPR injuries in children are

                                        25
extraordinarily rare. Id. at 142. She has never heard of a case like this where a

child receiving the constellation of injuries found on K.B. was caused by CPR.

Id. at 142 - 143. Dr. Hamel was confronted with a study entitled, Do

Resuscitation-Related Injuries Kill Infants and Children, by Evan Matshes,

which notes that blunt abdominal trauma particularly laceration of the liver or

spleen or rupture/transection of a hollow vicus, in the absence of motor vehicle

accidents, bicycle accidents, and falls from heights, should be considered

victims of inflicted injury until proven otherwise. Id. at 144 - 145. While she

agreed with that premise she dismissed that conclusion in K.B.'s case because

she did not have a "belly full of blood." Id. at 145. She was also confronted with

a study from Florida that dealt with hundreds of children over the course of ten

years and did not find one child that had multiple injuries from CPR; a study

from Germany and from Florida that both concluded that people that know the

victim would be less forceful in their application of CPR; a German study that

concluded that unexperienced bystanders who performed CPR were not more

likely to increase the risk of injury from CPR; and another German study that

concluded the duration of CPR maneuvers seems not to be associated with the

existence of CPR-associated injuries in children. Id. at 145 - 147. She said that

these studies do not change her opinion that K.B.'s constellation of injuries

were the result of CPR. Id. at 147. Finally, Dr. Hamel acknowledged as true the

medical literature in Dr. Byard's text about Death in the Young states that

"severe multifocal injuries are not a feature of standard resuscitation," which is

                                        26
the case with K.B., the existence of severe and multifocal injuries. Id. at 147 -

148.

            Finally, Doctor Gulino in rebuttal testimony rejected Dr. Hamel's

testimony that K.B. could not have died of blood loss. (N.T., Trial by Jury,

10/27 /21, pp. 171 - 172). He stated that for a child such as K.B, it would take

a loss of about 450 to 550 milliliters of blood to die from bleeding alone, and he

testified that the autopsy documented the presence of a total of 330 milliliters

of blood in the chest cavity and an additional hundred milliliters of blood in the

abdominal cavity, which is a total of 430 milliliters. Id. at 172. This represented

of about 40% of K.B.'s blood volume. Id. He said that that doesn't even take.

into account the blood inside the tissues that could not be measured, the blood

in her lung tissue, in her bladder tissue, and the blood that was around her

stomach and pancreas, and the blood on the surface of her liver. Id. He opined

that all together that is about 550 to 600 milliliters of blood loss from the

various injuries, which would indicate death from blood loss. Id. at 173.

            At the conclusion of the four-day trial, the jury found Appellant

guilty of the aforementioned charges. Sentencing was held immediately

thereafter, where a term of life imprisonment was imposed. A timely post-

sentence motion was filed, and was denied. This timely appeal followed.

                                     ISSUES

             Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), this Court directed Appellant to file

a concise statement of errors _complained of on appeal. Appellant did so, and

raised the following issues as set forth verbatim below:

                                         27
            1. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's post-
               sentence motion for a judgment of acquittal as to
               murder of the first degree in that:

               (a) the Commonwealth failed to present evidence
                   that Appellant acted with the specific intent to
                   kill; and

               (b) the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that
                   the decedent was in the sole custody of
                   Appellant?

            2. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's post-
               sentence motion for a new trial as the verdict was
               against the weight of the evidence where the
               Commonwealth's case was riddled with
               inconsistencies and defied common sense as to the
               nature and extent of the juries allegedly sustained
               by the two children?

            3. Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant's
               [the] opportunity to proceed to a hearing
  s            challenging the competency of a child witness for
 l:            taint?
  f~
  1~11
            4. Did the trial court err in admitting child hearsay
 !.8!          pursuant to the tender years exception?

l           5. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant' s
 I";)\         motion for a mistrial for a discovery violation where
/              the child complaining witness disclosed additional
I~
',_2/ '        facts to the Commonwealth during trial
I              preparations and the Commonwealth failed to
:2             disclose this new information to Appellant prior to
(Ji
,,.,.)...      that witness's testimony?
"'          6. Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion
               for a continuance where a pediatric pathologist
               became unavailable to testify?

                                       28
            7. Did the trial court err in admitting autopsy
               photographs of the four-year-old decedent?

            8. Did the trial court err in declining to read the
               proposed voir dire questions to the jury panel
               regarding the nature of the offenses and the
               autopsy photographs of the four-year-old decedent
               to determine if potential jurors could set aside their
               passions and determine the matter based on the
               evidence presented?

See, Concise Statement of Matter Complained of on Appeal, filed 1/6/22.

I.    Sufficiency of the Evidence

            First on appeal, Appellant claims that this Court erred in denying

his post-sentence motion for a judgment of acquittal as to murder of the first

degree in that (1) the Commonwealth failed to present evidence that Appellant

acted with the specific intent to kill; and (2) the Commonwealth failed to

demonstrate that the decedent was in the sole case and custody of Appellant.

            When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our

appellate court's standard of review is de novo, while its "scope of review is

limited to considering the evidence of record, and all reasonable inferences

arising therefrom, viewed in the light rhost favorable to the Commonwealth as

the verdict winner." Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa.

2014). "Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it

establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission

thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.

Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). The Commonwealth may sustain its

burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Dix,

                                        29
207 A.3d 383, 390 (Pa.Super. 2019). Further the trier of fact is free to believe,

all, part, or none of the evidence presented when making credibility

determinations. Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39, 45 (Pa.Super. 2016)

(citation omitted). "[Our appellate court] may not substitute its judgment for

that of the factfinder, and where the record contains support for the

convictions, they may not be disturbed." Commonwealth v. Smith, 146 A.3d

257, 261 (Pa.Super. 2016).

            A conviction of first-degree murder requires the Commonwealth to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt "a human being was unlawfully killed; the

defendant was responsible for the killing; and the defendant acted with malice

and a specific intent to kill." Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1133

(Pa. 2011). See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a). "Specific intent to kill can be proven

where the defendant knowingly applies deadly force to the person of another."

Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644, 650 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

"The Commonwealth can prove this specific intent to kill from circumstantial

evidence." Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 523-524 (Pa.2003) (citation

omitted).

      a. Specific intent to kill

            In this case, Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence

demonstrating that he acted with specific intent to kill for first degree murder.

Dr. Gulino extensively explained to the jury his findings of the external and

internal injuries to K.B. 's body. He ultimately opined that K.B. died of blunt

impact trauma associated with strangulation, and that the manner of death

                                        30
was homicide. Doctor Gulino found that the types, the extent, and number of

injuries would not be consistent with CPR in children. He noted that he has

personally never observed a similar external constellation of injuries, the

presence of subconjunctival hemorrhages both eyes; bruising of her face;

injuries to her tongue; two healed fractures; and multiple scars, to be as a

result of CPR, nor does the medical literature support such a determination

which actually state that CPR injuries are quite uncommon.

            He detailed the autopsy findings, namely the ragged laceration to

the vena cava, which he opined can be caused when a great deal of force is

applied to the lower half of a body. That that kind of pressure can actually tear

the vein where it goes right into the heart, which is what he found in the

autopsy photographs. He additionally determined that there were other injuries

which indicated that there was force being applied in multiple areas of K.B. 's

abdomen, such as a laceration of the left lobe of the liver, bruising in the

intestinal mesentery; bruising around the pancreas; bruising on the surface of

the stomach; and bruising down on the surface of her urinary bladder. Dr.

Gulino opined that these injuries were caused by blunt trauma.

            Further, Doctor Gulino stated that in opposition to the autopsy

report, these were not "bloodless" lacerations. He supported this by noting

there was a large area of bleeding associated with the laceration of the inferior

vena cava, bleeding on the surface of the various organs, including the urinary

bladder and on the surface of the stomach, bleeding into the lungs, and an

epicardial hemorrhage associated with the laceration to the right heart

                                        31
ventricle. There was also evidence of strangulation, noting subconjunctival

hemorrhage on the surface of the eye, petechiae on the skin of the face, soft

tissue hemorrhages in the neck, in the muscles, and then also in the deep

tissues of the neck near the carotid artery. He opined that these are consistent

with pressure being placed on the neck.

            Finally, Doctor Gulino rejected Doctor Hamel's testimony that K.B.

could not have died of blood loss. He stated that for a child like K.B it would

take a loss of about 450 to 550 milliliters of blood to die from bleeding alone,

and he testified that the autopsy documented the presence of a total of 330

milliliters of blood in the chest cavity and an additional hundred milliliters of

blood in the abdominal cavity, which is a total of 430 milliliters. This

represented of about 40% of K.B. 's blood volume, which doesn't even take into

account the blood inside the tissues that could not be measured, the blood in

her lung tissue, in her bladder tissue, and the blood that was _around her

stomach and pancreas, and the blood on the surface of her liver. He opined

that all together that is about 550 to 600 milliliters of blood loss from the

various injuries, which would indicate death from blood loss.

             In addition to Dr. Gulino's testimony, was the testimony of Dr.

Christian. Dr. Christian reviewed K.B.'s autopsy, and her expert opinion was

that she was severely beaten and that she died of trauma. She categorically

denied that the injuries she saw documented in K.B. 's autopsy could have been

caused by CPR. In her experience, throughout her whole career, and education

she has, "[n]ever ever" seen these kind of injuries caused by CPR. In fact, she

                                         32
stated that the vast majority of children who undergo CPR have zero injuries.

That's based on her personal experience and what is documented in the

medical literature, that maybe one percent of children who undergo CPR have

injuries from CPR, and if they do, they will have a single injury.

            Our Pennsylvania Courts have consistently rejected the premise

that there must be evidence of a single fatal blow in order to find the specific

intent to kill in cases where death results from the prolonged beating of the

victim.

            Commonwealth v. Chambers, 602 Pa. 224, 980 A.2d
            35, 46-48 (2009) (confirming the lack of merit to the
            "final fatal blow" argument and finding specific intent
            to kill where the defendant engaged in a continued
            pattern of child abuse and ultimately threw the three-
            year-old child across the room into a radiator and left
            her to suffocate between a bed and a wall);
            Commonwealth v. Powell, 598 Pa. 224, 956 A.2d 406
            (2008) (rejecting claim of lack of evidence of specific
            intent to kill where the defendant repeatedly beat his
            six-year-old son, causing a seizure that resulted in
            death by asphyxiation because there is nothing in law
            requiring a final fatal blow to demonstrate a specific
            intent to kill); Commonwealth v. Smith, 544 Pa. 219,
            675 A.2d 1221 (_1996) (plurality) (finding sufficient
            evidence of first degree murder where a five-month-old
            baby died while in the defendant's care and expert
            medical testimony established that the cause of death
            was six to ten blows to the baby's head).
Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 491 (Pa. 2015).

             Notably the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted in Powell, supra,

wherein the Court stated:

            There is nothing in the law, logic, or human experience
            that provides, as a matter of law, that specific intent

                                        33
            cannot be found when the medical examiner cannot
            point to a specific blow as the definitive cause of death.
            The very personal nature of a beating such as this
            negates the notion that a specifically identifiable killing
            blow is required to prove specific intent. After each
            beating, indeed, after each blow, appellant had time to
            reflect on what he was doing to his son. And, with the
            final "stomping" he administered to various vital parts
            of the child's body, appellant had ample time to
            appreciate the lethality of his conduct. The jury acted
            well within its authority in finding specific intent.
Powell, 956 A.2d at 417. Therefore, consistent with this case law examining a

defendant's course of conduct in child abuse murder cases, there is sufficient

evidence that Appellant possessed the specific intent to kill. The evidence

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the

evidence established that Appellant was responsible for K.B. 's death, and that

he acted with the specific intent to kill by using deadly force on a four-year-old

toddler, who she knew as her dad.

      b. Sole custody

            The "sole and exclusive custody'' doctrine, is well established in

Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1980);

Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250, 301 A.2d 837 (Pa. 1973);

Commonwealth v. Hart, 501 A.2d 675, 678 (Pa.Super. 1985). This doctrine

provides that where, as here, an adult is given sole custody of a child of tender

years for a period of time and, during that time, the child sustains injuries

which unquestionably are neither self-inflicted nor accidental, the evidence is

sufficient to allow the fact-finder to infer that the adult having custody inflicted

the injuries. Paquette, 301 A.2d at 840. This rule, allowing an inference of

                                         34
guilt, has been applied where a child suffers a fatal injury while an adult has

sole custody of the child. Commonwealth v. Nissly, 549 A.2d 918 (Pa.Super.

1988). Thus, to invoke the sole and exclusive custody doctrine, the

Commonwealth must show (1) serious injury or death, (2) that the injury was

neither accidental nor self-inflicted, (3) that the injury was inflicted within a

specific time period, and (4) that the defendant had exclusive custody of the

victim during the time of the injury.

             At trial, Ms. Bunrout testified that she started living with Appellant

in January of 2016. (N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/26/21, p. 81). She lived there with

Appellant, K.B., D.B., and eventually K.T., when she was born in September of

2016. Id. at 81 - 82. The night before K.B. died, she had given her a bath. She

did not observe any bruising on K.B.'s abdomen or back areas. On October 18,

2016, Ms. Bunrout had to be up early for work, so the night before she went to

bed at 9:00 p.m. She left for work at 3:30 a.m. At about 7:45 a.m., she received

a text from Appellant saying, "You need to come home right now. I can't wake

[K.B.] up. I don't' know what to do. Hurry."

             Appellant in his post-sentence motion argues that "[s]pecifically,

with respect to the times relevant to K.B.'s death, no testimony established that

K.B. was alive at the time her mother left for work that morning. The

Commonwealth failed to present evidence that her mother verified that K.B.

was alive when she left their home for work that morning." See, Post-Sentence

Motion, filed 11/8/21. However, this argument is of no moment. The time that

K.B. died has never been fixed. The evidence did establish that Ms. Bunrout

                                         35
went to bed at 9:00 p.m. on October 17, 2016, after giving K.B. a bath where

she did not see any bruising on her. She left for work on October 18, 2016, at

3:30 a.m. The next event was the text from Appellant at 7:45 a.m., and that by

the time police arrived at 7:53, K.B. had no pulse. The only people in the

apartment during those hours were Appellant, D.B., and K.T. who was a

newborn. Based upon this evidence, the jury properly concluded that K.B. was

in the sole and exclusive custody of Appellant at the time she died.

II.   Weight of the Evidence

            Second, Appellant contends that this Court erred in denying his

post-sentence motion for a new trial as the verdict was against the weight of.

the evidence where the Commonwealth's case was riddled with inconsistencies

and defied common sense as to the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly

sustained by the two children.

            An allegation that the verdict is against the weight of
            the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial
            court. Our Supreme Court has explained that
            appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
            exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question of
            whether the verdict is against the weight of the
            evidence. A motion for new trial on the grounds that
            the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence,
            concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain
            the verdict. Thus, the trial court is under no obligation
            to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
            verdict winner. A new trial should be awarded when
            the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to
            shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new
            trial is imperative so that right may be given another
            opportunity to prevail. Stated another way, and as the
            trial court noted, this Court has explained that the
            evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain
            that· the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.

                                       36
Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 805-806 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations

and quotations omitted). The question the trial court must answer, in the

sound exercise of its discretion, is whether "notwithstanding all the facts,

certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them

equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice." Sullivan at 806, citing

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000). Because the trial

judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an

appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons

advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Widmer at 321,744 A.2d at

753. "A trial court's exercise of discretion in finding that a verdict is or is not

against the weight of the evidence is 'one of the least assailable reasons for

granting or denying a new trial.'" Id., at 806, citing Widmer at 321, 744 A.2d at

753.

             In this case, contrary to Appellant's assertion that the testimony

was "riddled with inconsistencies and defied common sense as to the nature

and extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the two children," the

testimony of both Dr. Christian and Dr. Gulino was credible and credited by

the jury. First, as to K.B., both Dr. Christian and Dr. Gulino were absolutely

consistent in their determination that the injuries that were observed on K.B.

were not accidental and not the result of CPR; but instead intentionally

inflicted injuries, namely strangulation and blunt impact trauma. Dr.

                                          37
Christian, reviewed K.B. 's autopsy and determined that she was severely

beaten and died of trauma. She categorically denied the premise that these

injuries were caused by CPR, in that CPR injuries are exceedingly rare and if

they do occur they involve a single injury not injury to multiple organs.

             Like Dr. Christina, Dr. Gulino also disagreed with the coroner's

findings that the injuries observed on K.B. were artifacts of resuscitation. He

explained that the types on injuries, the extent of the injuries, and the number

of injuries, are not consistent with injuries associated with CPR. He stated that

none of the medical literature has documented children with multiple injuries

of the severity and type that he saw in K.B. 's case. In fact, the defense's own

expert, Dr. Hamel agreed that she has never heard of a case in the medical

literature in which a child received the same constellation of injuries as K.B. to

be caused by CPR. Dr. Gulino ultimately determined that K.B. died of blunt

impact trauma associated with strangulation. This expert opinion is consistent

with Dr. Christian's determination that K.B. was severely beaten and her death

was caused by intentional trauma. Moreover, the jury did not credit the

testimony of Dr. Hamel in her determination that K.B.'s injuries were a result

of CPR.

            As to D.B., Dr. Christian testified that the subconjunctival

hemorrhages that he presented with in September of 2018 at CHOP were

caused by severe yalsalva, i.e., pressure, consistent with severe compression,

strangulation, or asphyxiation. The doctor also testified that the disclosures

that D.B. made in February of 2019, about the abuse, was consistent with his

                                        38
injuries; specifically that he couldn't breathe because he was being held in a

chokehold. Additionally, D.B.'s trial testimony was consistent with his

disclosure to his mother, i.e., that Appellant put him in a chokehold, and the

disclosures he made in his February 9, 2019, interview with Ms. Sweeney.

III.   Taint Hearing

            Third on appeal, Appellant contends that this Court erred in

denying him the opportunity to proceed to a hearing challenging the

competency of a child witness for taint.

            On July 9, 2021, a second Pre-Trial Motions Hearing was

conducted. At issue in part was whether a taint hearing was warranted. In

support of a taint hearing defense counsel argued as follows:

            With respect to this matter, you have in 2018,
            September of 2018, the child at issue here wakes up,
            is found with redness in his eye, is taken to Children's
            Hospital in Philadelphia. While he's down at Children's
            Hospital in Philadelphia, he is interviewed extensively
            by Maggie Sweeney from Mission Kids. During that"
            interview, the child indicates that no one had caused
            any harm to him at all. And that had been the case as
            far as all the evidence that I've been provided, all the
            evidence I believe that the Commonwealth has in its
            possession, that had been the case from September
            until February 8th of 2019.

            On February 8 th of 2019, Tina Wright from the
            Department of Human Services in Philadelphia, arrives
            at the child's home where he's living at the time with
            maternal grandparents. When he arrives at the home -
            - or when she arrives at the home with maternal
            grandparents, she has a conversation with Pailenn
            Bunrout, the child's mother. And in this conversation,
            she details essentially what is going on with the

                                       39
            investigation. And she also indicates to the child's
            mother that the child needs to be believed.

            Immediately following this meeting, the child's mother
            goes upstairs, has a one-on-one conversation with the
            child in the child's bedroom, at which point in time,
            low and behold, he discloses. Under these
            circumstances, I'd submit to the Court that there
            certainly are several issues with respect to taint.
            Number one, with respect to what the child heard with
            respect to those conversations; and, number two,
            specifically what the child's mother said at that point
            in time.

            And in terms of background for that, too, there had
            been discussions before between the child's mother
            and my client who share another younger child
            together, which my client is the biological father of,
            about the fact that he was looking to get custody of
            that child. At that point in time, they had been - - the
            child was out of the home, but up until the point in
            time that the child was removed from the home, he
            and the mother had shared custody. He indicates that
            he wanted to have custody of their child. And then
            that's the background under which all this is
            happening.

            So, again, pursuant to Delbridge, I believe that we've
            made our initial threshold, I'd submit to the Court that
            we made our initial threshold with respect to our
            burden, that the circumstances surrounding the
            disclosure lend themselves to the potential for taint.
            And I'd certainly submit to the Court that we intent to
            prove by clear and convincing evidence that that was
            the case.

(N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 7 /9/21, pp. 12 - 14). This Court denied the request,

having found that the defense had not met the necessary threshold under

Delbridge and that there would not be a taint hearing. Id. at 15.

                                        40
            Generally, a court evaluates an allegation of taint at a competency

hearing. Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27, 40 (Pa. 2003). The

proponent of the claim first bears the burden of establishing "some evidence" of

taint. Id. Once the party meets that threshold requirement, he theh must meet

the ultimate burden of demonstrating taint by clear and convincing evidence.

Id. The critical inquiry in deciding the issue of taint at a competency hearing is

whether the memory of the child has been corrupted. Id.

            In analyzing whether a party has met the "some evidence of taint"

standard, the trial court considers the totality of the circumstances around the

child's allegations. Id. at 41. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has identified

some of the common considerations relevant to this analysis as follows:

            (1) the age of the child; (2) the existence of a motive
            hostile to the defendant on the part of the child's
            primary custodian; (3) the possibility that the child's
            primary custodian is unusually likely to read abuse
            into normal interaction; (4) whether the child was
            subjected to repeated interviews by various adults in
            positions of authority; (5) whether an interested adult
            was present during the course of any interviews; and
            (6) the existence of independent evidence regarding the
            interview techniques employed.

Commonwealth v. Judd, 897 A.2d 1224, 1229 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation

omitted).

            In this case, the defense did not present "some evidence of taint" to

warrant a taint hearing. D.B. was nine years old at the time of the disclosure in

February of 2019. He was living with his maternal grandparents at that time.

The disclosure occurred after Tina Wright, a Pennsylvania Department of

                                        41
Human Service employee, had come into the home of D.B.'s grandparents. His

mother was visiting him there on February 8, 2019, when Ms. Wright came to

the home. In her conversation with Ms. Bunrout, she encouraged her to believe

her son: That prompted Ms. Bunrout to talk to D.B, at which time he disclosed

that Appellant had choked him.

            In addition, defense counsel argued that the disclosure occurred

after being interviewed by Mission Kids in September of 2018, and failing to

make the allegation at that time. This in and of itself does not show some

evidence of taint. D.B. was still living in the home with Appellant at that time of

the September, 2018 interview. He was never interviewed again until February

of 2019, after he did disclose to his mother and he was no longer living with

Appellant. Further, defense counsel stated that Appellant wanted sole custody

of the child he shared with Ms. Bunrout. However, this fact standing alone

does not support a hostile motive on Ms. Bunrout's part.

            Given the totality of the circumstances, defense counsel did not

satisfy the burden to trigger a taint hearing.

IV.   Tender Years Exception
                                             0

            Fourth, Appellant claims it was trial curt error to admitted child

hearsay pursuant to the Tender Years exception.

            On January 9, 2020 and on March 10, 2020, the· Commonwealth

filed a Motion to Admit Out of Court Statements Pursuant to the Tender Years

Act and a Supplemental Motion to Admit Out of Court Statements Pursuant to

Tender Years Act, respectively. Therein, the Commonwealth sought to

                                        42
introduce the statements made by D.B. to his mother on February 8, 2019 and

those he made on February 9, 2019, to Maggie Sweeney in a forensic interview.

            "[Q]uestions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the

sound discretion of the trial court, and [a reviewing court] will not reverse the

court's decision on such a question absent a clear abuse of discretion."

Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498, 510 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation

omitted). Our appellate court applies the "abuse of discretion" standard when

reviewing admission of statements under the tender years exception.

Commonwealth v. Curley, 910 A.2d 692, 697 (Pa. Super. 2006).

            "Generally, an out-of-court statement is inadmissible at trial

unless it falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule." Hunzer, supra.

See also Pa.RE. 801(c)(l) (defining "hearsay'' as statement that "(1) the

declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2)

a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the

statement"), 803 ("Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules,

by other rules prescribed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or by statute.").

Tender Years Hearsay Act creates an exception to the hearsay rule for young

victims and witnesses. The tender years exception provides for the admissibility

of a hearsay statement when it has 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).

             Pennsylvania's Tender Years Hearsay statute relevantly provides
the following:

            § 5985.1. Admissibility of certain statements

                                        43
             (a) General rule.--
             (1) 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 ... , not otherwise admissible by
             statute or rule of evidence, is admissible in evidence in
             any criminal or civil proceeding if:
             (i) 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
             (ii) the child either:
             (A) testifies at the proceeding; or
             (B) is unavailable as a witness.
             42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5985.1( l)(i)-(ii)(A)-(B) (bold in original).

Commonwealth v. Jones, 245 A.3d 1092 (Pa.Super. 2020). Our Supreme Court

explained:

             The [Tender Years Act] concerns the admissibility of
             out-of-court statements made by a child victim or
             witness to third parties. The admissibility of this type
             of hearsay is determined by assessing the
             particularized guarantees of trustworthiness
             surrounding the circumstances under which the
             statements were uttered to the person who is
             testifying. To determine whether a child's out-of-court
             statements are admissible under the [Tender Years
             Act], a trial court must assess the relevancy of the
             statements and their reliability in accordance with the
             test enunciated in Idaho v. Wright, [497 U.S. 805
             (1990)]. Although the test is not exclusive, the most
             obvious factors to be considered include the
             spontaneity of the statements, consistency in
             repetition, the mental state of the declarant, use of
             terms unexpected in children of that age and the lack
             of a motive to fabricate.

Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442, 451 (Pa. 2014) (quotations omitted).

             At the July 9, 2021, Pre-Trial Motions Hearing this Court heard the

testimony of Ms. Bunrout and that of Maggie Sweeney. After which this Court

                                          44
       made the following findings of fact. On February 8, 2019, Ms. Bunrout was at

       her parents' house to see her kids. (N.T., Pre-Trial Motions, 7 /9/21, p. 26).

       Appellant was not permitted to see the kids at that time. Id. at 24 - 25. D.B.

       was ten years old at that time. D.B. viewed Appellant as his father. Id. at 25.

                   While at her parents' house, Ms. Bunrout received a call from Tina

       Wright. Id. at 27. Ms. Wright came to the house. Id. at 27, 28. Her appearance

       was unexpected, and not a planned event on Ms. Bunrout's part. Id. at 27.

       Once there, they sat down and talked about why Ms. Wright was there. Id. at

       27, 28. During the time they were talking, D.B. was up in his bedroom. Id. at

       28. Ms. Bunrout testified that she had been crying downstairs when Ms.

       Wright was there. Id. at 42. After Ms. Wright left, Ms. Bunrout went upstairs

       and approached D.B. in his bedroom. Id. at 29, 30. Ms. Bunrout was not crying

       when she went upstairs to talk to D.B. Id. at 42. Her interaction with her son
s
,o,C   was very brief. Id. at 30 - 31. Ms. Bunrout said to D.B., "I just wanted to talk
N
       and basically said if he was telling some body anything, like I would like to

       know." Id. at 30. At that point, D.B. broke down, and told her. Id. This

       statement was inconsistent with his prior statement to his mother, in which he

       denied any wrongdoing. Id. at 23. And his disclosure was inconsistent with his

       prior Mission Kids statement which did not lead to any kind of disclosure. Id.

       at 59.

                    Maggie Sweeney, who was the forensic interviewer at Mission Kids

       during the time of February of 2019. Id. at 48. She was a very experienced

       forensic interviewer. Id. at 48 - 49, 50 - 53. Mission Kids is a carefully

                                               45
designed program so that the child is not subject to multiple interviews. Id. at

49. Forensic interviewers are trained in a protocol and to ask open-ended, non-

leading questions in a child friendly manner and developmentally appropriate

for each child. Id. at 50. The process at Mission Kids is carefully designed to

generate truthful and accurate answers and not the product of guessing. Id. at

55. The interview is a situation where it is just the interviewer and the child in

the interview room. Id. at 54. There are no interested adults or parents present.

Id.

            Following the testimony of Ms. Sweeney, the Commonwealth

presented the in camera testimony of D.B.

            Based upon these findings of fact, this Court made conclusions of

law. Initially, this Court found that both the mother and Ms. Sweeney testified

truthfully and accurately, and that their testimony was credible and worthy of

belief. Id. at 98. The February of 2019 statements given to the mother and to

Ms. Sweeney are consistent, but were inconsistent with D.B.'s prior statements

in 2018 to his mother and to Mission Kids.

            At the time of the 2019 statements, D.B. was not living with

Appellant, who D.B. viewed as a parent. This Court found that D.B. had no

motive to lie, and was particularly likely to be telling the truth when he made

the statement to his mother and to Ms. Sweeney. This Court credited Ms.

Bunrout's testimony as accurate in how she described her conversation with

D.B., D.B.'s disclosure to his mother was spontaneous after a brief interaction.

Ms. Bunrout did not ask questions in a detailed way, and only followed up with

                                        46
a few very general follow-up questions. She did not pressure D.B. It was a

situation in which this conversation with his mother was the spark that led to

the truth. This Court concluded that the indications of reliability are present in

D.B.'s statement to her. D.B.'s~emotional and mental state was far different

when he disclosed than at times when he was hiding the truth in the past.

Further, as to the Mission Kids statement, this Court concluded that based

upon the process that was used by Ms. Sweeney, it was reliable. Accordingly,

this Court concluded that the Mission Kids statement and D.B. 's statement to

his mother were admissible.

            In this case, there is no dispute that D.B. was 10 years old when

he made the statements to his mother and Ms. Sweeney in February of 2019,_

that the charged crimes were enumerated under the Tender Years Act, D.B.

testified at trial, and that D.B.'s statements were relevant. Rather, defense

counsel argued that his statement to his mother were not spontaneous. (N.T,

Pre-Trial Motion, 7 /9/21, p. 90). That the statements lacked consistency to

those D.B. previously gave in 2018. Id. He further argued that D.B.'s mental

state was not stable because he saw that his mother was upset prior to his

disclosure, and that Ms. Bunrout immediately took D.B. to the police after he

disclosed. Id. at 90 - 91. Defense counsel argued that although there is

consistency between the February 2019 statements, these were both the

product of D.B. 's excited mental state and that once he made the disclosure, he

stuck with it whether it was true or not true. Therefore, the inconsistence of

these statements with those of 2018 demonstrate a lack of reliability. Id. at 91.

                                        47
             However, this defense argument is not consistent with the

determinations made by this Court after listening to the credible testimony of

Ms. Bunrout, Ms. Sweeney, and D.B.'s in-camera testimony. On February 8,

2019, Ms. Bunrout unexpectedly had a conversation with Ms. Wright and then

went up to D.B.'s bedroom and asked him very general questions, to which

D.B. made the admission that Appellant had choked him. This was not

planned, but rather sparked by his mom's questions. The next day when he

spoke to Ms. Sweeney, D.B. was consistent in the allegations he made against

Appellant. The fact that the February 8, 2019 disclosure to his mom which was

consistent with D.B.'s statement to Ms. Sweeney on February 9, 2019, were

inconsistent with previous Mission Kids statements is understandable. In

2019, D.B. was no longer living with Appellant, as compared to 2018 when he

was. Further, D.B. had no motive to fabricate an allegation of abuse against

Appellant, the man who he thought of as his father. Therefore, the statements

D.B. made to his mother and the Mission Kids February 9, 2019 statement

were admissible under the Tender Years Act. The content and circumstances of

D.B. 's statements provide a sufficient indicia of reliability. Moreover, this Court

provided the jury with a cautionary instruction. (N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/26/21

p. 131 - 132).

V.    Mistrial

             Fifth, Appellant contends that this Court erred in denying his

motion for a mistrial for a discovery violation where the child complaining

witness disclosed additional facts to the Commonwealth during trial

                                         48
preparations and the Commonwealth failed to disclose this new information to

him prior to that witness's testimony.

            On the second day of trial, the Commonwealth presented the

testimony of D.B. In relevant, the Commonwealth questioned D.B. about what

Appellant would do to hurt him ..(N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/26/21; p. 25). D.B.

explained that Appellant would put his arm around his neck, and D.B.

demonstrated a chokehold position. Id. D.B. described that it would hurt and

that he couldn't breathe. Id. D.B. explained that Appellant would have him in

this position, "[f]or a while" and that he "would pass out." Id. at 26. On cross-

examination, defense counsel questioned D.B. about his statement that he

would pass out. Id. at 53. Defense counsel asked D.B. whether he had ever told

Ms. Sweeney from Mission Kids that he had passed out. Id. at 53 - 54. Defense

counsel further asked whether today at trial was the first time he was ever

telling anybody about passing out. Id. at 54. In particular he asked whether

D.B. had ever told anyone in the District Attorney's Office that he had passed

out before trial. Id. D.B. responded that he had. Id. At this juncture, defense

counsel requested a sidebar. Id. After the jury left the courtroom, defense

counsel made a motion for a mistrial. Id. at 55. He argued as follows:

            This is the first I'm hearing about in terms of passing
            out as a result of this. Obviously, strangulation has
            been consistent - starting in February of 2019, but
            has been consistent, but this is the first time I'm
            hearing about this. It didn't come up in the Mission
            Kids interviews. And I understand things come up over
            the course of prepping witnesses, obviously having sat
            where Ms. Ringwood and Mr. Mccann are. Sometimes
            things come up that didn't come up in discovery

                                         49
             before. I just never received anything with respect to
             that point. So, accordingly, I'd just move for a mistrial.

Id. In response, the Commonwealth explained that D.B. flew in on Thursday,

and that she met with him on Friday and also on Sunday. Id. It was on Friday

that D.B. did disclose as part of the prepping him for trial that he did say that

he passed out. Id. at 56. While the Commonwealth acknowledged that prior to

prepping him for trial, D.B. never specifically said the words "passed out," it

argued that it is fair to infer from the totality of the details of his disclosure

that this happened. Id. The Commonwealth further argued that it is a minor

detail in context of D.B. 's entire testimony. Id.

             Defense counsel responded that Appellant has been prejudiced by

this discovery failure because his cross-examination of the Commonwealth's

expert Dr. Christian was impacted by limiting his full and fair opportunity to

do so. Id. at 58. The Commonwealth observed that during Dr. Christian's direct

testimony she never discussed passing out, and there were never any questions

about passing out. Id.

             It is well settled that "[a] mistrial is an 'extreme remedy' that is

only required where the challenged event deprived the accused of a fair and

impartial trial. The denial of a mistrial motion is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion." Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618, 638 (Pa. 2010) (citations

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bozic, 997 A.2d 1211, 1226 (Pa.Super.

2010) ·(in the con text of reviewing the denial of a mistrial motion, stating that

"the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it

                                          50
        misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason."

        (citation omitted)). "The trial court is vested with discretion to grant a mistrial

        whenever the alleged prejudicial event may reasonably be said to deprive the

        defendant of a fair and impartial trial. In making its determination, the court

        must discern whether misconduct or prejudicial error actually occurred, and if

        so, assess the degree of any resulting prejudice." Bozic, 997 A.2d at 1225

        (citation and ellipses omitted).

                     A violation of discovery does not automatically entitle [the

        defendant] to a new trial. Rather, a defendant must demonstrate how a more

        timely disclosure would have affected his trial strategy or how he was otherwise

        prejudiced by the alleged late disclosure. Commonwealth v. Brown, 200 A.3d

        986, 993 (Pa.Super. 2018) (some citations omitted and formatting altered); see

        also Commonwealth v. Ligons, 773 A.2d 1231, 1237 (Pa. 2001) (stating that

        "the trial court is accorded broad discretion in fashioning a remedy [for a

        Commonwealth discovery violation], with a mistrial warranted only when the
!.;ll
        violation is of such nature as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial" (citation

        omitted)).

                     This Court denied the motion for a mistrial, finding there was no

        manifest necessity for a mistrial. (N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/26/21, p. 59). This

        Court rejected the defense argument that cross-examination of Dr. Christian

        was impacted, in that knowledge of "passing out" would have materially

        affected cross-examination. Id. This Court observed that Dr. Christian was

        questioned at length about the mechanics of strangulation and the impact on

                                                 51
the larynx, throat, the cutting off the air supply by eliminating the oxygen or

otherwise depriving the brain of blood. Id. at 59 - 60. Further, this Court found

that the testimony of passing out was within the context of what was being

described all along in the materials previously provided to the defense. Id. at

60. There was no part of the Commonwealth to hide something or not reveal

something that seemed to be within what has been spoken about all along. Id.

Therefore, the motion for a mistrial was properly denied.

VI.   Continuance Request

             Sixth, Appellant asserts that it was an error of the trial court in

denying his request for a continuance where a pediatric pathologist became

unavailable to testify.

             On Thursday, October 21, 2021, an additional pre-trial motions

hearing was held, in part to address the motion for a continuance that defense

counsel had filed the previous day. (N.T, Pre-Trial Motions, 10/21/21, p. 2).

The basis for his request was that expert witness, Dr. Laura Waters, a pediatric

pathologist, had become unavailable, and that she no longer had an interest in

participating in this case. Id. at 4, 6. Defense counsel wanted extra time to try

to find another defense expert. Id. at 9.

             Our appellate court will review the denial of a continuance for an

abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Braitman, 217 A.3d 297, 299

(Pa.Super. 2019). "This Court will not find an abuse of discretion if the denial

of the continuance request did not prejudice the appellant." Id. An appellant

                                            52
shows prejudice where he is " 'able to show specifically in what manner he was

unable to prepare his defense or how he would have prepared differently had

he been given more time.'" Id. at 300 (citing Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d

85, 91 (Pa.Super. 2012)).

            [W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a request for a

continuance, the following factors will be considered:

            (1) the necessity of the witness to strengthen the
            defendant's case;
            (2) the essentiality of the witness to the defendant's
            defense;
            (3) the diligence exercised to procure his or her
            presence at trial;
            (4) the facts to which he or she could testify; and
            (5) the likelihood that he or she could be produced at
            court if a continuance were granted.

Commonwealth v. Small, 559 Pa. 423, 453, 741 A.2d 666, 683 (1999) (citations

omitted).

            At the hearing, defense counsel elaborated and explained that at

the time of K.B.'s death her autopsy was performed by deputy coroner with

Montgomery County Coroner's Officer, Dr. Marianne Hamel. (N.T, Pre-Trial

Motions, 10/21/21, p. 2). In her autopsy report, Dr. Hamel opined that the

cause of manner of death were undetermined. Id. at 2 - 3. An investigation into

K.B.'s death was re-opened in 2018 as a result of the investigation into D.B.'s

injuries. Id. at 3. Appellant was arrested in February of 2019. Id. Subsequently,

the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office retained to Dr. Gulino, the

chief medical examiner in the city of Philadelphia. Id. at 4. He issued a report

                                        53
that K.B. died of blunt force trauma and strangulation, and that the manner of

death was homicide. Id. Based upon this information the Montgomery County

Coroner's Officer sent their materials to Dr. Waters. Id. Dr. Waters issued an

opinion in January of 2020, which stated that the cause and manner of K.B.'s

death were best left as undetermined. Id. That report _was turned over to the

District Attorney's Office inJuly of 2020, and a few days later the District

Attorney's Office provided it to the defense. Id.

             Prior to the scheduling of trial, which was in April of 2021, defense

counsel spoke with Dr. Waters, who indicated she would be willing and

available to testify at trial. Id. at 5. A few weeks prior to the hearing, defense

counsel spoke with Dr. Waters, :who indicated that due to undisclosed health

reasons she was no longer available, and would also not be able to testify via a

live video link. Id. at 5 - 6. Dr. Waters ultimately told defense counsel that she

no longer wanted to participate in this case. Id. at 6.

             Defense counsel argued that due to the nature of the allegations in

this case, and that pediatric pathology is a specialized field, he would need

additional time to try and find an expert who might be able to render an

opinion in support of his defense. Id.

             In pertinent part, the Commonwealth told this Court that it would

be prejudiced if the case was continued. It was ready to proceed the following

Monday with all of its witnesses. Id. at 7 - 8. In particular, its two expert

witnesses. Id. at 8. One expert had to fly here from overseas. Id. Multiple

witnesses were flying in from out of state and were arriving that day. Id.

                                          54
Further, the Commonwealth highlighted for the Court that defense counsel has

not identified a specific expert he would retain, and that he might even find an

expert to support the defense. Id. Further, the deputy coroner Dr. Hamel who

performed the autopsy will be testifying at trial. Id. at 9.

             After outlining their respective positions, this Court denied the

request and placed its reasons on the record as follows:

             I deny the request for a continuance based in a large
             part on the fact that the defense has, as a witness, the
             person who performed the autopsy. The person who
             performed the autopsy is in the best position to make
             a call on manner and cause of death. I don't think
             there'll ever be a forensic pathologist that would
             disagree with that statement. I've heard that testimony
             under oath before.

             There also is a great deal of speculation here. To
             continue this case a great prejudice to the
             Commonwealth and end up having another date in the
             future without the defense coming up with any
             additional witnesses I think is the likely result.

             So I think the defendant can present his defense and
             we'll have the trial starting Monday.

Id. at 10 - 11.
             In this case, this Court noted that the necessity of the witness was

not paramount to the defendant's case. He already had the forensic pathologist

who actually performed the autopsy available to testify. It was her autopsy

findings that was the foundation for the defense assertion that K.B.'s death

was not a homicide and that the injuries found on her body were merely the

result of resuscitation efforts. In addition, it was pure speculation that the

defense would be able to procure another pediatric pathologist who would

                                          55
support the defense position. Further, to continue the case would prejudice the

Commonwealth who had arranged for all of its witnesses to be present on the

scheduled trial dates. Accordingly, the request for a continuance request was

properly denied.

VII.   Autopsy Photographs

            Appellant's next issue on appeal, he claims that this Court erred in

admitting autopsy photographs for K.B., the four-year-old decedent.

            Appellant filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Autopsy Photographs

on March 12, 2020. Defense counsel objected at the Pre-Trial Motions Hearing

held on May 12, 2021, to the those photographs of K.B., a four-year-old child,

which depict her entire body laid out on the autopsy table with injuries,

artifacts of resuscitation and dried blood around her nose. (N.T., Pre-Trial

Motions, 5/ 12/21, pp. 5- 6). He argued that the jury would not be able to

separate out the depiction of her injuries combined from the artifacts of

resuscitation, and that these photographs were inflammatory per se. Id. at 7.

He also argued that the need for these photographs does not outweigh the

likelihood of inflaming the jury's passions. Id. 7 - 8. More specifically, defense

counsel argued that the Commonwealth's expert, Dr. Gulino, who authored a

report, sets forth his findings as to what he observed after examining these

photographs and therefore, the need to show them to the jury is not necessarily

that great. Id. at 8 - 9. In the alternative, defense counsel suggested that

should this Court determined that these photographs are admissible, then they

                                         56
should be introduced in black and white and that the artifacts of resuscitation

be redacted. Id. at 10 - 11.

            The Commonwealth did submit that it could redact some portions

of the objected to photographs such as the nose, intubation, and the child's

genitalia. Id. at 11 - 12. As to the defense argument as to necessity overall of

the photographs, the Commonwealth argued that in a case such as this

photographs are very necessary. Id. at 12. The Commonwealth pointed out that

the defense strategy is to allege is that K.B. 's death is not even a homicide, and

will introduce the findings of the Montgomery County Coroner's Office who

ruled K.B. 's death as undetermined. Id. Therefore, the Commonwealth will have

to show not this is a homicide and in fact first-degree murder. Id. To that end,

it i$ necessary to show that there was bruising on K.B. 's chest and that there

were injuries that were not caused by resuscitation as was suggested by the

Montgomery County Coroner's Office. Id. at 12 - 13. In addition, the

Commonwealth rejected the idea of presenting the photographs in black and

white because the color photographs show the bruising and hemorrhages in

the eyes. Id. at 13. The Commonwealth explained that it is necessary to show

this to the jury in color to prove that these were inflicted injuries and not

caused by resuscitation. Id.

            This Court denied the Motion in Limine on May 21, 2021.

            The admissibility of photos of the corpse in a homicide case is a

matter within the discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of discretion

will constitute reversible error. Commonwealth v. Mccutchen, 454 A.2d 547,

                                         57
549 (Pa. 1982). In this regard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has observed

that:

            A criminal homicide trial is, by its very nature,
            unpleasant, and the photographic images of the
            injuries inflicted are merely consonant with the
            brutality of the suqject of inquiry. To permit the
            disturbing nature of the images of the victim to rule
            the question of admissibility would result in exclusion
            of all photographs of the homicide victim, and would
            defeat one of the essential functions of a criminal trial,
            inquiry into the intent of the actor. There is no need to
            so overextend an attempt to sanitize the evidence of
            the condition of the body as to deprive the
            Commonwealth of opportunities of proof in support of
            the onerous burden of proof beyond a reasonable
            doubt.

Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519, 531 (Pa. 2003). When considering the

admissibility of photographs of a homicide victim, which by their very nature

can be unpleasant, disturbing, and even brutal, the trial court must engage in

a two-step analysis: -

            First a [trial] court must determine whether the
            photograph is inflammatory. If not, it may be admitted
            if it has relevance and can assist the jury's
            understanding of the facts. If the photograph is
            inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or
            not the photographs are of such essential evidentiary
            value that their need clearly outweighs the likelihood
            of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors.
Id. (citation omitted). Further, the condition of the victim's body provides

evidence of the assailant's intent, and, even where the body's condition can be

described through testimony from a medical examiner, such testimony does

not obviate the admissibility of photographs. Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 639

A.2d 786, 789 (Pa. 1994).

                                        58
               In this case, this Court determined that admission of these

photographs was proper. They were absolutely necessary to establish the cause

and manner of death, both of which were at issue in this case. In fact, there

were competing expert opinions on these issues at trial. Additionally, these

photographs were needed by the Commonwealth's forensic pathologist to

explain his opinion. This Court found that the probative value far outweighs

the prejudicial impact in this case. In addition, this Court limited the amount

of time in which they would be displayed in seconds, not minutes. And the

forensic pathologist will be oriented to the photographs before they are

displayed to the jury. Further, this Court provided a cautionary instruction 3 to

the jury several times. (N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/25/21, p. 11 - 12, 46, 61; N.T.,

Trial by Jury, 10/27 /21, p. 9).

               The Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v.

Woodward, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) is instructive to our case. The trial court in

Woodward entered an order granting the Commonwealth's motion in limine

. permitting in part the admission of 12 color autopsy photographs of the 2-year-

old victim. The trial court determined that the Commonwealth satisfied its

3      This Court cautioned the jury as follows:

               Members of the jury, once again, I remind you it won't be a
               pleasant photograph to look at. It won't be up too long, but you
               should not let it stir up your emotions to the prejudice of the
               defendant. Your verdict must be based on a rational and fair
               consideration of all the evidence and not on passion or prejudice
               against the defendant, the Commonwealth, or anyone else
               connected with this case.

(N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/25/21, pp. 61 - 62).

                                                59
burden of demonstrating that the photos were necessary to rebut the defense of

an accidental drowning. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the

appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in

permitting the Commonwealth to admit these photos into evidence. The Court

held that the trial court acted within its discretion, and concluded that the

images depicted were not inflammatory. The Court reasoned that "the twelve

challenged color photographs portrayed various parts of [the boy's] body and

illustrated the nature and extent of his injuries, which would have not been

readily detectable in a black and white photo." Woodard, 129 A.3d at 494-95.

The jury in Woodard was not given the photographs to examine during

deliberations, but viewed them in connection with the Commonwealth's

expert's testimony explaining the findings of the autopsy report. Id. at 495.

            The Court in Woodard further noted that even if the photographs

were inflammatory, "we conclude, without hesitation, that they were highly

probative as they related directly to the requisite elements of first degree

murder, i.e., that [the boy] was unlawfully killed, as opposed to having drowned

by accident, and that [the a]ppellant possessed the specific intent to kill." Id.;

see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gorby, 527 Pa. 98, 588 A.2d 902,908 (1991)

(no abuse of discretion in allowing photographs "which depicted a large gaping

gash on the victim's neck as well as thirteen other knife wounds located on the

victim's hands, arms, back, and chest" to establish intent to kill);

Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 587 A.2d 1367, 1374 (1991) (holding

that a color photograph of gaping neck wound of murder victim was

                                         60
inflammatory, but was essential evidence of specific intent to kill when the

defendants claimed that they unintentionally caused the victim's death.).

              Finally, this Court provided the jury with a cautionary instruction

three times during the course of the trial. Commonwealth v. O'Hannon, 732

A.2d 1193, 1196 (Pa. 1999) ("Absent evidence to the contrary, the jury is

presumed to have followed the trial court's instructions.").

VIII.   Voir Dire Questions

              Finally, Appellant alleges that this Court erred in declining to read

the proposed voir dire questions to the jury panel regarding the nature of the

offenses and the autopsy photographs of the four-year-old decedent to

determine if potential jurors could set aside their passions and determine the

matter based on the evidence presented.

              In assessing Appellant's claim, the following standard of review in

applied upon appellate review.

             The scope of voir dire rests in the sound discretion of
             the trial court, whose decision will not be reversed on
             appeal absent palpable error. The purpose of voir dire
             is to ensure the empaneling of a competent, fair,
             impartial, and unprejudiced jury. The scope of voir
             dir~ should therefore be limited to questions that
             attempt to disclose a potential juror's lack of
             qualification or fixed opinion regarding the defendant's
             guilt or innocence. A prospective juror's personal views
             are of no moment absent a showing that these
             opinions are so deeply embedded as to render that
             person incapable of accepting and applying the law as
             given by the court.

                                         61
Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 715 A.2d 1086, 1094 (Pa. 1998) (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted).

            The purpose of the voir dire examination is to provide an

opportunity to counsel to assess the qualifications of prospective jurors to

serve. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 305 A.2d 5 (Pa. 1973). It is therefore

appropriate to use such an examination to disclose fixed opinions or to expose

other reasons for disqualification. Id. Thus the inquiry must be directed at

ascertaining whether the venireperson is competent and capable of rendering a

fair, impartial and unbiased verdict. Id. The law also recognizes that

prospective jurors were not cultivated in hermetically sealed environments free

of all beliefs, conceptions and views. The question relevant to a determination

of qualification is whether any biases or prejudices can be put aside upon the

proper instruction of the court. Commonwealth v. England, 375 A.2d 1292 (Pa.

1977).

            As we recognized above, the purpose of the voir dire
            examination is to disclose qualifications or lack of
            qualifications of a juror and in particular to determine
            whether a juror has formed a fixed opinion as to the
            accused's guilt or innocence. The law recognizes that it
            would be unrealistic to expect jurors to be free from all
            prejudices, a failing common to all human beings. We
            can only attempt to have them put aside those
            prejudices in the performance of their duty, the
            determination of guilt or innocence. We therefore do
            not expect a tabula rosa [sic] but merely a mind
            sufficiently conscious of its sworn responsibility and
            willing to attempt to reach a decisiqn solely on the
            facts presented, assiduously avoiding the influences of
            irrelevant factors.

Johnson, 305 A.2d at 8.

                                        62
            It is equally well established that voir dire is not to be used to

attempt to ascertain a prospective juror's present impressions or attitudes.

            The examination of jurors under voir dire is solely for
            the purpose of securing a competent, fair, impartial
            and unprejudiced jury .... Neither counsel for the
            defendant nor for the Commonwealth should be
            permitted to ... ask direct or hypothetical questions
            designed to disclose what a juror's present impression
            or opinion may be or what his attitude or decision will
            likely be under certain facts which may be developed
            in the trial of the case. While considerable latitude
            should be permitted on a voir dire, the inquiry should
            be strictly confined to disclosing qualifications of a
            juror and whether a juror has formed a fixed opinion
            or may be otherwise subject to disqualifications for
            cause."

Commonwealth v. McGrew, 100 A.2d 467, 470 (Pa. 1953); See, Commonwealth

v. Biebighauser, 300 A.2d 70, 75 (Pa. 1973); Commonwealth v. Hoss, 283 A.2d

58, 63, 64 (Pa. 1971); Commonwealth v. Swanson, 248 A.2d 12, 15 (Pa. 1968).

            With these principles in mind, we turn the case at issue. On the

first day of trial, defense counsel placed on the record that he proposed a voir

dire question with respect to the autopsy photographs, which the Court

declined. (N.T., Trial by Jury, 10/25/21, p. 48). Defense counsel stated that in

his experience that when you have autopsy photographs of a child, inevitably a

few jurors get extremely upset. Id. After the Commonwealth stated its response,

this Court put on the record the reason for its denial of the request. Defense

counsel's proposed question does not relate to whether the prospective juror

could render a fair and impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented at

trial. Rather, the proposed question seeks to elicit "what a juror's present

                                        63
impression or opinion may be or what his attitude or decision will likely be

under certain facts which may be developed in the trial of the case." Id. at 49.

Therefore, the rejected question was irrelevant to the legitimate purposes of voir

dire and properly disallowed by this Court. In addition, this Court did provide

cautionary instructions to the jury, several times, in this regard.

                                     CONCLUSION

                    Based upon the foregoing analysis, Appellant's judgment of

sentence entered on October 28, 2021, should be affirmed.

                                                BY THE COURT:

                                                WILLIAM R. CARPENTER   J.
                                                COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                MONTGOMERY COUNTY
                                                PENNSYLVANIA
                                                38TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Copies sent on February 16, 2022
By Electronic Mail to:

Robert Falin, Esquire, Deputy District Attorney, Chief of Appellate Division;
RFalin@montcopa.org

Matthew W. Quigg, Esquire; MQuigg@rgsglaw.com

Denise S. Vicario, Esquire, Executive Director; opinions@montgomerybar.org

Paul DAnnunzio; PDAnnunzio@alm.com

                                           64
Copies sent on February 16, 2022
By First Class Mail to:

Marquis Lamont Thomas #QN6794
SCI Smithfield
1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652

Judicial Assistant

                                   65