Court Opinion

ID: 9905543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:20.071411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.689163
License: Public Domain

J-S37042-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  NAMIL BROWN                                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 681 EDA 2023

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 17, 2023
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0006792-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                          FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2023

       Namil Brown (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after a jury convicted him of incest and endangering the welfare of a

child (EWOC).1 We affirm.

       When the victim was around 16 years old, she reported to a therapist

that Appellant had sexually assaulted her when she was between the ages of

four and five (between 2008 and 2009). N.T., 8/24/22, at 23. At the time,

Appellant lived in an apartment, and the victim relayed that she and her older

siblings would stay overnight at the apartment. Id. at 23-25. According to

the victim, she would sleep in the apartment’s one bed, while her siblings slept

elsewhere. Id. at 25-26.

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4302(a), 4304(a)(1).
J-S37042-23

       The victim stated that Appellant “would do sexual stuff” to her. Id. at

27. During these incidents, the victim would bend over the bed. Id. at 29.

Appellant would remove the victim’s clothing, put baby oil on his penis, and

penetrate the victim’s anus. Id. at 27-28. Based on this information, the

Commonwealth charged Appellant with multiple sex-related crimes.

       On June 3, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine seeking to

introduce    other    bad-acts    evidence.        See   Pa.R.E.   404(b)(2).2   The

Commonwealth sought to present evidence of Appellant’s unlawful sexual

contact with another child (complainant), between 2015 and 2016, when the

complainant was seven years old.               Motion to Admit Other Acts Evidence,

6/3/22, at 2. The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion.

       On August 29, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of incest and EWOC, but

acquitted Appellant of the remaining charges of involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse and corruption of minors.3 On February 17, 2023, the trial court

sentenced Appellant to four to eight years in prison, followed by five years of

____________________________________________

2 Pa.R.E. 404 provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts

       may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive,
       opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
       absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this
       evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence
       outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.

Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).

3 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b), 6301(a)(1)(ii).

                                           -2-
J-S37042-23

probation. Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court have

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents the following issue: “Did

the trial court err in admitting evidence of [Appellant’s] other bad acts?”

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

      Appellant argues the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other bad

acts. Id. at 9. He argues,

      [i]f the Commonwealth is allowed to enter these other acts into
      evidence, one is hard-pressed to determine the purpose of Rule
      404(b)(1). The commonalities cited by the Commonwealth are
      gender, race, age, that occurred in his home, and that they include
      penetration. None of these commonalities deal with plan, scheme,
      or design, or knowledge or intent. These commonalities just go
      to show that Appellant is a pedophile who likes to have illegal
      sexual contact. Furthermore, such evidence of prior bad acts is
      highly prejudicial, and its prejudice certainly outweighs its value
      in proving common scheme, plan, design, knowledge, and intent.

Id. at 10.

      Pertinently, we recognize that the admissibility of evidence

      is a matter for the discretion of the trial court and a ruling thereon
      will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court
      committed an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is not found
      merely because an appellate court might have reached a different
      conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or
      partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as
      to be clearly erroneous….

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959, 1009 (Pa. 2023) (citations and

quotation marks omitted).

      While “evidence of other crimes evidence committed by a defendant is

generally not admissible to show his criminal propensity ... such evidence is

relevant and admissible to establish the perpetrator’s identity, or the existence

                                       -3-
J-S37042-23

of a common scheme or plan.” Commonwealth v. Gray, 296 A.3d 41, 47

(Pa. Super. 2023).

      Generally, pursuant to Rule of Evidence 404, “[e]vidence of any
      other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s
      character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person
      acted    in   accordance     with    the   character.”      Pa.R.E.
      404(b)(1). However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible for
      another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent,
      preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or
      lack of accident” and where “the probative value of the evidence
      outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).

      Under the common plan or scheme exception, evidence of other
      crimes or bad acts may be admitted where “the evidence reveals
      criminal conduct which is distinctive and so nearly identical as to
      become the signature of the same perpetrator.” Commonwealth
      v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)
      (citation omitted). “Relevant to such a finding will be the habits
      or patterns of action or conduct undertaken by the perpetrator to
      commit crime, as well as the time, place, and types of victims
      typically chosen by the perpetrator.” Id. at 359 (citation
      omitted).    “Sufficient commonality of factors” between the
      incidents “dispels the notion that they are merely coincidental and
      permits the contrary conclusion that they are so logically
      connected they share a perpetrator.” Commonwealth v.
      Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2009)….

Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 532 (Pa. Super. 2023). The trial

court must also consider balancing factors, including remoteness and potential

for prejudice. Commonwealth v. G.D.M., 926 A.2d 984, 987 (Pa. Super.

2007).

      This Court has explained,

      [t]he essential elements of the act of rape, as well as other sexual
      crimes, will necessarily produce any number of similar
      characteristics when two acts of rape are scrutinized for shared
      features, particularly where, as we have here seen, there is
      commonality of roles and situs attendant to the criminal episodes.

                                     -4-
J-S37042-23

Commonwealth v. Frank, 577 A.2d 609, 614 (Pa. Super. 1990). Our Courts

have also looked at factors such as race, age, and sex of the victims; the time

of day of the crime; the proximity to the defendant’s home and the crime

scenes; and the manner and location to which the victim was taken. Id. at

614-16.

       Instantly, the Commonwealth explained that a forensic interview of the

seven-year-old complainant revealed:

       [W]hile sleeping in [Appellant’s] bedroom, [Appellant] put
       [complainant] on top of him and put his “balls” in the
       complainant’s panties and it felt hard and “pee” went into the
       complainant’s private part. [Appellant] made complainant put
       [complainant’s] hands on his “balls” and squeeze.” [Appellant]
       rubbed on the skin on the outside of complainant’s private part
       with his hand.      [Appellant] told complainant not to tell
       [complainant’s] mom or grandmother….

Id. at 2.    Appellant pled guilty to attempted rape and unlawful contact of

complainant at trial court docket CP-51-CR-5484-2017.4 Id. at 3.

       The Commonwealth averred that evidence regarding Appellant’s assault

of complainant was relevant to demonstrate Appellant’s common plan,

scheme, or design regarding the victim:

       [T]he following shared characteristics and striking similarities
       establish a nexus and relate these alleged crimes as part of a
       common plan, scheme, and design:

       1. Both victims are females
____________________________________________

4 The trial court sentenced Appellant to 2-4 years in prison, followed by 10

years of reporting probation. Id.

                                           -5-
J-S37042-23

      2. Both victims are African-American

      3. Both victims were pre-pubescent at the time of the allegations

      4. Both crimes happened where the defendant resided at the time

      5. Both crimes are of a similar nature (anal penetration and
      attempted penetration)

      These similarities, enumerated in part above, between the
      incidents reported by each complainant, evidence a common
      pattern of conduct and common relationship among offenses.

Id. at 6-7. The Commonwealth further asserted that evidence of the prior

acts was admissible to prove Appellant’s “intent, knowledge, motive, and state

of mind when he engaged in sexual contact with the [victim].”       Id. at 7.

According to the Commonwealth, the evidence was necessary to prove

Appellant’s knowledge and disregard of the children’s ages.         Id.   The

Commonwealth also sought admission of the prior bad acts to rebut any false

inferences/defenses by Appellant. Id.

      Upon review, we conclude “[s]ufficient commonality of factors between

the incidents dispels the notion that they are merely coincidental and permits

the contrary conclusion that they are so logically connected they share a

perpetrator.” Kurtz, 294 A.3d at 532 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

The complainant and the victim were Appellant’s young children.           The

incidents involving both children occurred while each stayed overnight in

Appellant’s care, and both were assaulted in Appellant’s bed.      See N.T.,

                                    -6-
J-S37042-23

8/24/22, 23-30 (victim describing sexual assault in Appellant’s bed); N.T.,

8/25/22, 9-16 (complainant describing sexually assault in Appellant’s bed).

      We further conclude the probative value of the other bad acts evidence

outweighed any prejudice. See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) cmt. (“When weighing the

potential for prejudice of other crimes, wrongs or acts, the trial court may

consider whether and how much such potential for prejudice can be reduced

by cautionary instructions.”).

      Here, the trial court instructed the jury:

            You have heard evidence tending to prove [Appellant] was
      involved in improper conduct for which he is not on trial. I am
      speaking of the testimony from [complainant] to the effect that
      [Appellant] sexually molested [complainant] when [complainant]
      was six years old.

            This evidence is before you for a limited purpose. That is
      for the purpose of tending to show common plan, scheme[,] or
      design. This evidence must not be considered by you in any way
      other than for the purpose that I just stated.

           You must not regard this evidence as showing that
      [Appellant] is a person of bad character or criminal tendencies
      from which you might be inclined to infer guilt.

N.T,. 8/26/22, at 59.      Jurors are presumed to follow the trial court’s

instructions. Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 666 (Pa. 2014).

      Consistent with the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion by the

trial court in admitting the other bad acts evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).

Appellant’s issue does not merit relief.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -7-
J-S37042-23

Date: 11/27/2023

                   -8-