Court Opinion

ID: 9954165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:12:59.308307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.597154
License: Public Domain

J-S08037-24

                                   2024 PA Super 55

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BRODY BARRETT KLINE                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :     No. 942 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 4, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                           CP-67-CR-0000775-2021

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BRODY BARRETT KLINE                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :     No. 943 MDA 2023

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 4, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                           CP-67-CR-0000973-2022

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                        FILED: MARCH 25, 2024

       In these consolidated appeals,1 Brody Barrett Kline appeals from the

April 4, 2023 aggregate judgment of sentence of 799 to 1598 months’

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1Appellant’s appeals at Nos. 942 MDA 2023 and 943 MDA 2023 were sua
sponte consolidated by this Court on November 14, 2023.
J-S08037-24

imprisonment imposed after a jury found him guilty of involuntary deviate

sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) with a child; rape of a child; incest of a minor;

indecent exposure; eight counts of corruption of minors; four counts of

indecent assault; two counts of aggravated indecent assault; and criminal

attempt – indecent assault.2 After careful review, we affirm the judgment of

sentence.

       The trial court summarized the relevant factual background of this case

as follows:

              Appellant’s convictions stem from the long-term
              systematic abuse of his five victims, all his minor
              children, each of whom testified at trial as to such
              abuse. Their testimony was further reinforced by the
              testimony of investigators including police, a forensic
              nurse, a therapist, a forensic scientist, and a child
              forensic interviewer. Beyond the direct testimony
              offered by the victims, evidence was offered to show
              semen on a victim’s underwear, and signs of abuse in
              the victims.

Trial court opinion, 8/14/23 at 1.

       On October 31, 2022, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial before the

Honorable Harry M. Ness. During trial, Appellant’s wife, Emily Kline (“Wife”),

testified that after she was made aware of the sexual abuse allegations from

her minor daughters, she confronted Appellant on two occasions. Notes of

testimony, 10/31-11/4/22 at 270-271, 276, 300. Wife testified that in both

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b); 3121(c); 4302(b)(1); 3127(a); 6301(a)(1)(i), (ii);

3126(a)(7), (8); 3125(a)(7), (b); and 901(a), respectively.

                                           -2-
J-S08037-24

instances, Appellant did not admit or deny the allegations of sexual abuse and

merely “got angry” and that she “couldn’t make sense of [Appellant’s response

or lack thereof].” Id.

       Following a five-day jury trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of

rape of a child, IDSI of a child, and related offenses on November 4, 2022.

As noted, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 799 to 1598

months’ imprisonment on April 4, 2023. See notes of testimony, 4/4/23 at

47-49.3    The trial court also found that Appellant meets the criteria to be

classified as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). Appellant filed timely post-

sentence motions which were denied by the trial court on June 1, 2023. This

timely appeal followed on June 30, 2023.4

       On appeal, Appellant raises only one issue for our review:

              Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
              gave the tacit admission jury instruction, over
              [Appellant’s] objection, where there was no tacit
              admission made and giving the instruction violated
              [Appellant’s] right to not have his silence used against
              him in a way that was exceedingly prejudicial?

Appellant’s brief at 4.

       Our standard of review in assessing whether a trial court erred in

fashioning its instructions to the jury is well settled.

              In reviewing a jury charge, we determine whether the
              trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an
____________________________________________

3 The record reflects that Appellant received 861 days’ credit for time-served.

4 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                           -3-
J-S08037-24

            error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.
            We must view the charge as a whole; the trial court is
            free to use its own form of expression in creating the
            charge. A trial court has broad discretion in phrasing
            its instructions, and may choose its own wording so
            long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately
            presented to the jury for its consideration. Moreover,
            it is well-settled that the trial court has wide discretion
            in fashioning jury instructions. The trial court is not
            required to give every charge that is requested by the
            parties and its refusal to give a requested charge does
            not require reversal unless the appellant was
            prejudiced by that refusal.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 314 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations

omitted), appeal denied, 187 A.3d 908 (Pa. 2018).

      Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it gave

a tacit admission jury instruction in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to

not have his silence used against him.         Appellant’s brief at 16-25.   We

disagree.

      “The Fifth Amendment was enacted to protect against self-incrimination,

whether [the suspect is] in custody or not, charged with a crime, or merely

being questioned during the investigation of a crime.” Commonwealth v.

Molina, 33 A.3d 51, 63 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc) (citation omitted),

affirmed, 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014).         “[T]he government may not use ...

silence as substantive evidence of guilt when a defendant chooses not to

testify. ... [That silence] may also not be used against a defendant who

remained silent during the investigation of a crime.” Id. (citation omitted).

                                       -4-
J-S08037-24

      However, the Fifth Amendment “does not impose a prima facie bar

against any mention of a defendant’s silence.”             Id. (emphasis added).

Instead, the Fifth Amendment protects against the prosecution’s exploitation

of a defendant’s right to remain silent. See id. “[A] mere reference to pre-

arrest silence does not constitute reversible error where the prosecution does

not   exploit   the   defendant’s   silence   as   a   tacit   admission   of   guilt.”

Commonwealth v. Adams, 104 A.3d 511, 512-513 (Pa. 2014).

      In the instant matter, the trial court gave the following instruction to

the jury over Appellant’s objection:

            [Appellant] did not testify in this case, and it’s entirely
            up to the defendant in every criminal trial whether or
            not to testify. He has an absolute right founded upon
            the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
            and the United States of America not to testify and to
            remain silent, and you should not draw any inference
            of guilt or any other inference adverse to the
            defendant from the fact that he did not testify.

            There was evidence presented that [Appellant] failed
            to deny an accusation directed at him by [Wife] on
            October 19th of 2020. The law treats this statement
            as what’s called a tacit admission and is firmly
            entrenched under law.

            While ordinarily a defendant’s response to the
            allegations would be treated as hearsay, the only truth
            function to be derived is that the defendant did or said
            nothing. When considering this particular piece of
            evidence, you should consider whether [Wife] made
            the statement in [Appellant’s] presence, [Wife] made
            the statement within the immediate area surrounding
            [Appellant],    [and    Appellant]    understood     the
            statement.

                                       -5-
J-S08037-24

              The statement must have embraced a fact within
              [Appellant’s] knowledge, [Appellant] must have been
              able to speak physically, and [Appellant] was not
              operating from a psychological state that prevented
              his ability to speak in the surrounding circumstances
              that would have necessitated a reply.

              If you believe this evidence, you may consider it as
              tending to prove [Appellant’s] consciousness of guilt,
              but you are not required to do so. You should consider
              and weigh this evidence along with all the other
              evidence in this case.

Notes of testimony, 10/31-11/4/22 at 634-635.

         Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial

court in providing this instruction to the jury.        The record reflects that

Appellant’s tacit admission is evident from the following two exchanges during

trial:

              Q.        When you looked at the underwear, what did
                        you – did you notice anything? Did you see
                        anything on them?

              [Wife:]   Yes. There was semen in the underwear.

                                       ....

              Q.        Do you remember confronting [Appellant]?

              [Wife:]   I did. I went over and he was still lying down
                        and I asked him what – what is this, what
                        did you do?

                                       ....

              Q.        And when you confronted him about that, do
                        you remember his reaction?

              [Wife:]   It didn’t make any sense. There was no
                        denying or admitting. He got angry, but he

                                       -6-
J-S08037-24

                       was always angry. You couldn’t make sense
                       out of it.

                                      ....

           Q.          Do you remember what [Appellant’s]
                       response was when you confronted him
                       about [victim G.K.] and [victim H.K.]?

           [Wife:]     Again it was the same as – there was no
                       denying or admitting. It was just anger. It
                       seemed like – so it didn’t go anywhere.
                       There was no sense of it again.

Id. at 269-271, 276.

     Courts in this Commonwealth have continually recognized that evidence

of tacit admissions are permitted in Pennsylvania, except in the narrow

circumstances   where     such   an   introduction   burdens   a      defendant’s

constitutional right to remain silent. See, e.g. Commonwealth v. Hawkins,

701 A.2d 492, 509 (Pa. 1997) (stating, “evidence of a defendant’s silence in

refusing to deny guilt after an accusation of guilt has been made (often

referred to as a tacit admission) is generally not admissible where the

silence occurred while the defendant is in police custody because a

contrary policy would effectively vitiate a defendant’s constitutionally

guaranteed right against self-incrimination.” (emphasis added)), cert.

denied, 523 U.S. 108 (1998).

           The rule of evidence is well established that, when a
           statement made in the presence and hearing of a
           person is incriminating in character and naturally calls
           for a denial but is not challenged or contradicted by
           the accused although he has opportunity to speak, the
           statement and the fact of his failure to deny it are

                                      -7-
J-S08037-24

            admissible in evidence as an implied admission of the
            truth of the charges thus made.

Commonwealth v. Barnett, 121 A.3d 534, 546 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation

omitted), appeal denied, 128 A.3d 1204 (Pa. 2015), cert. denied, 578 U.S.

1014 (2016).

      In the instant matter, Appellant’s silence was in direct response to

sexual abuse accusations levied against him by Wife prior to his arrest. Thus,

his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not implicated. The

trial court’s instruction to the jury stated that they may, but were not required

to, consider the evidence of Appellant’s failure to respond to Wife’s accusations

as proof of his consciousness of guilt, and not as direct evidence of guilt. See

notes of testimony, 10/31-11/4/22 at 635.           The probative value of the

evidence of Appellant’s failure to deny Wife’s accusations that he sexually

abused   their   minor   children,   which   a   reasonable   person   in   similar

circumstances would have done, far exceeded its prejudicial nature.

      Based on the forgoing, we find the trial court’s instructions clearly,

adequately, and accurately presented the relevant law to the jury for its

consideration.    Appellant’s claim to the contrary, therefore, must fail.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s April 4, 2023 judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -8-
J-S08037-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/25/2024

                           -9-