Court Opinion

ID: 9891134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 16:10:18.274457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:11.022647
License: Public Domain

J-A19042-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RICHARD BEENER, SR.                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1993 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 26, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                       at No(s): CP-46-CR-0000814-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                        FILED OCTOBER 17, 2023

       Richard Beener, Sr. (Beener) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court)

after his bench conviction of two counts of rape of a child, 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 3121(c), and related charges.1 He raises several challenges, including the

weight of the evidence, the trial court’s grant of the Commonwealth’s motion

to admit prior bad acts evidence, denial of his motion to admit evidence in an

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The related charges included two counts of involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3123(a); one count each of aggravated indecent
assault of a person less than 13 years of age, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(b), and
corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1); and three counts each of
indecent assault, person below age of 13, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7), and
indecent exposure, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3127(a).
J-A19042-23

unrelated matter in Chester County, and his post-trial motion for a new trial

based on newly-discovered evidence. We affirm.

                                      I.

                                      A.

      The trial court set forth the background facts in its January 3, 2023

opinion, as follows:

            In the early morning hours of September 21, 2018, [Victim],
      then 21 years old, was out with her friends Esmeralda Delgado
      and Trevor Young at Prima Motel and Lounge in Phoenixville,
      Pennsylvania, when she encountered [Beener], her uncle by
      marriage, at the bar. [Victim] had gone up to the bar to pay her
      tab and stood next to her uncle. When [Beener] touched her, she
      fled outside crying. Once outside, [Victim] told Trevor to go get
      him, “go beat him up.” (N.T. Trial, 2/01/22, at 73). As the
      memories came rushing back, she explained to her friend that
      “Uncle Ricky” had molested her as a child. (Id. at 73, 76, 79,
      152). [Victim] then called her parents and told them that her
      uncle had molested her when she was younger, as both her
      mother and father had previously suspected.

            [Victim’s] father, Joseph Morgan, drove to Prima, picked up
      his daughter and drove her to the Phoenixville Police station so
      that [Victim] could report the abuse. Mr. Morgan described his
      daughter as crying and shaking when he picked her up and relayed
      that she kept saying to him “you were right the whole time.” (Id.
      at 142-143). Patrol Officer Brad Dobry from the Phoenixville
      Police Department met [Victim] and her father at the police station
      to take a basic summary of their statements at 2:33 a.m. on
      September 21, 2018. Officer Dobry “took [Victim] as being
      credible and truthful when she came in that day.” (N.T. Trial,
      2/02/22, at 9).

            [Victim] returned to the Phoenixville Police station on
      Monday, September 24, 2018, for an interview with Corporal Nick
      Natale. [Victim] disclosed to Corporal Natale that she had
      previously told her girlfriend Esmeralda Delgado about the abuse
      and that her friend Megan True was a witness to at least one of
      the incidents.    Once Corporal Natale determined where the

                                     -2-
J-A19042-23

      majority of the alleged assaults occurred, he informed [Victim]
      that the investigation would be turned over to the Upper
      Providence Township Police Department.

            Detective Shea S. Johnson of the Upper Providence
      Township Police Department interviewed [Victim] on September
      24, 2018, Megan True on September 27, 2018, Pamela Evans,
      [Victim’s] mother, on October 22, 2018, and Mr. Morgan on
      November 29, 2018. On January 8, 2019, Detective Johnson filed
      a Criminal Complaint with an Affidavit of Probable Cause for the
      arrest of [Beener] and arrested [him] on the same day. In that
      affidavit, Detective Johnson summarized incidents that occurred
      many times from 2003 to 2009, as well as some of the incidents
      [Victim] could specifically remember, including the first when she
      was approximately six (6). years of age that occurred in
      [Beener]’s bedroom in the bed that he shared with his wife,
      another when she was approximately eleven (11) years old and
      was with a friend in the bathtub after the pair had gone swimming
      when [Beener] entered the bathroom and touched the girls with
      balloons, and another in 2007 that occurred at an open house
      when [Beener] blew up balloons and began masturbating in front
      of [Victim] until another person started walking toward them.
      (Criminal Complaint Affidavit of Probable Cause for the arrest of
      [Beener] filed 1/8/19; N.T. Commonwealth’s Motion to Admit
      Evidence of Prior Bad Acts 6/29/21, at 3-4 Exhibit C-1).

(Trial Court Opinion, 1/03/23, at 2-5); (most record citations omitted; some

record citation formatting provided).

                                        B.

      On July 12, 2019, the Commonwealth filed an information charging

Beener with the foregoing crimes. On June 2, 2021, the Commonwealth filed

a motion to introduce evidence of prior bad acts in which it sought to introduce

evidence of subsequent charges filed against Beener for indecent assault and

lewdness. The charges related to an incident in which Beener exposed himself

and masturbated in the doorway of his residence in front of a five-year-old

                                     -3-
J-A19042-23

neighbor in June 2014. In that case, Beener claimed that he was only trying

to give the girl a balloon.

       At the June 29, 2021 hearing on the motion, the Commonwealth stated

that it sought to admit the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b)(2)2 as evidence

of a common scheme or design and intent. (See N.T. Hearing, 6/29/21, at

4).   Emily DeAngelo, the mother of the child, testified that she and her

daughter lived next door to the Beeners during the relevant time period. She

explained that “[Beener] would try to engage with my daughter and give her

balloons, call her over to his home to—he would be standing at the door with

a balloon. ‘Hey, Mia, I have a balloon for you, come get a balloon.’” (Id. at

7). Ms. DeAngelo and her mother both asked Beener not to invite Mia over

for a balloon unaccompanied, but he continued to do so. She testified that in

addition to witnessing Beener masturbating against his glass or plastic storm

door in front of her daughter and claiming he was just trying to give her

daughter a balloon, Beener had given Mia balloons on a weekly basis and more

frequently as it got closer to the June 2014 incident. In the litigation that

followed, Beener pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent exposure to someone

under the age of 18, a misdemeanor of the second degree.

____________________________________________

2 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts “may be admissible for [the]
purpose [of] 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).

                                           -4-
J-A19042-23

       The Commonwealth argued there were significant similarities between

the 2014 case and the instant matter. Specifically, “1) the age of the victims

at the time of the offense, 2) the unique nature of the alleged offenses,

including Beener exposing his penis and masturbating in front of young girls

in or near his home, and 3) the use of or reference to balloons.” (Trial Ct.

Op., at 7) (citing N.T., 6/29/21, at 20-21, 23-28; Commonwealth’s Rule

404(b) Motion, at ¶ 11). The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion

the same day. (See Order, 6/29/21).

                                               C.

       On January 14, 2022,3 Beener filed a motion in limine to introduce an

unrelated December 2014 Chester County police report in which the Victim in

this case reported being sexually assaulted in Phoenixville. (See Beener’s

Motion in Limine to Introduce Police Reports, 1/14/22, at ¶ 1). The motion

alleged that the Chester County defendant pled guilty to the charge of

corruption of minors on a different factual basis than that reported by the

Victim. (See id. at ¶¶ 2-3). At argument, Beener’s counsel maintained that

the police reports reflect that the Victim made a false statement about her

age on Facebook and about sending text messages to the Chester County

____________________________________________

3 On July 7, 2021, Beener entered an open guilty plea and sentencing was
deferred pending the preparation of a pre-sentence investigative report (PSI).
Beener’s new (present) counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea that the
court granted on November 17, 2021.

                                           -5-
J-A19042-23

defendant in the days prior to the alleged sexual offense. Beener’s counsel

argued that the Chester County police report should be introduced into

evidence because it goes to the Victim’s credibility in this matter. Defense

counsel did not explain how the narrative summaries in the reports were

exculpatory in this matter or how they related to Beener’s defense, other than

as a general attack on the Victim’s credibility. The court denied the motion

the same day.4

                                               D.

       Trial commenced on February 1, 2022, at which time Beener was

colloquied about his decision to waive his right to a jury trial and proceed with

a bench trial. Thereafter, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of (1)

Ms. DeAngelo5 (mother of the 2014 victim); (2) Esmerelda Delgado; (3) the

Victim; (4) Joseph Morgan (the Victim’s father); (5) Trevor Young; and (6)

Phoenixville Borough Police Officer Brad Dobry.

____________________________________________

4 Also that day, the trial court issued orders granting Beener’s motion to
preclude the Commonwealth’s “blind expert,” motion to compel discovery and
motion in limine to preclude Beener’s statement and the contents of the PSI
generated after his withdrawn guilty plea.           It also granted the
Commonwealth’s motion to amend the information because it originally stated
incorrectly that the crimes occurred on December 31, 2009, when they
occurred between 2003 and December 31, 2009.

5 Ms. DeAngelo testified consistently with her testimony at the hearing on the

Commonwealth’s motion to admit Rule 404(b) evidence.           (See N.T. Trial,
2/01/22, at 23-32).

                                           -6-
J-A19042-23

                                               1.

       The Victim6 explained that she spent a lot of time at her aunt and uncle’s

(the Beener’s) residence when growing up due to the circumstances in her

own home. She explained that she loved her Aunt Kelly very much and they

did a lot of activities together. Her aunt and cousin, Gregory Beener, were

not always nearby when she was at the Beener house because her aunt would

go to work, go downstairs to cook or do the dishes, or go next door to see her

friend. She said that Beener did fun things with her such as baseball, board

games, playing the guitar and swimming and he bought her a lot of gifts for

holidays. She went on a fun family cruise with the Beeners.

       When describing the details of the sexual assaults and rape, the trial

court found the Victim “presented herself as an unsophisticated and very

credible and courageous witness, providing clear testimony about all the

events and the lurid details beginning as a little girl.” (Trial Ct. Op., at 25)

(citing N.T. Sentencing, 5/26/22, at 28). The court describes:

             [Victim] testified that the first time Uncle Ricky touched her
       inappropriately that she can remember occurred when she was six
       years old. She described how she was lying in the Beener’s bed
       in between her aunt on her right and Uncle Ricky on her left while
       they were watching a movie entitled “Spirit”, when her aunt fell
       asleep. That’s when she could feel her uncle’s hand under her
       clothes touching her vagina and moving his fingers up and down.
       Although his fingers did not go inside her vagina, she testified that
       they went around it and everywhere else. Specifically, she

____________________________________________

6 The Victim was 25 years old at the time of trial.

                                           -7-
J-A19042-23

     testified that his hands went between the lips of her vagina. She
     was shocked and scared and did not tell anyone at the time.

           [Victim] could not remember the specific order in which the
     assaults occurred, but she testified that she remembers
     everything that her uncle did to her. She testified in detail about
     several instances with her uncle that would happen before her
     uncle took her home. She described how he would say “I got
     something for you” as they were walking out to the car, and take
     her into the garage where he made her sit on a white chair. He
     would take out his penis and make [Morgan] hold his testicles
     while he masturbated until he ejaculated into a napkin. (N.T.,
     2/01/22, at 49-50, 63). His code phrases to [her] were “are you
     coming up” to get her in his bedroom, and “let’s fix it.” (Id. at
     58, 61, 91-92, 116). [She] described how they would start with
     a board game or watch part of a movie and he would look at her
     with “puppy dog eyes” and say “please come on, [Victim].” (Id.
     at 116-17).

            She testified that on other occasions when [she] was in the
     pool, [Beener] would blow up balloons and throw them in the pool,
     get in himself, remove his pants, chase her around in the pool,
     and then laugh when she swam away. On another occasion,
     [Victim] and her friend Megan got out of the Beener pool and went
     into the Jacuzzi tub to wash off the chlorine when [Beener] came
     in with balloons and tried to touch the girls with them. [Victim]
     described the balloons as long, like the ones they use to make
     balloon animals. [Victim] also described an incident at an open
     house that [Beener] took her to because she had always said she
     wanted to move into that house when she was little. As [Victim]
     and [Beener] were walking around in the house, [Beener] found
     balloons in a cabinet in the laundry room and started to take his
     penis out of his pants while he was blowing one up, when they
     heard someone else nearby in the house and [Beener] quickly
     stopped what he was doing.

            Another time when Megan was there and the two of them
     were watching television, [Victim] testified that her uncle walked
     in front of the TV in pajama bottoms [that] were unbuttoned and
     did jumping jacks until his penis fell out, and then he laughed.
     Another day when she was around nine (9) or ten (10), [Beener]
     told [Victim] that he had something for her in the garage and he
     pulled out a strawberry flavored condom, put it on and said “this

                                    -8-
J-A19042-23

      is how a condom works.” (Id. at 54). [Beener] then asked if he
      could stick “it” in her, but she said no. (Id.).

            Because her aunt had trouble driving at night, sometimes
      [Beener] would drive [Victim] home. She explained how, when
      she was nine (9) or ten (10), [Beener] would take his penis out of
      his pants and would lean over and try to touch [her] vagina while
      stopped at a red light or stop sign. [Victim] also testified about
      how [Beener] would give her quarters and $20 bills, and tell her
      not to tell anyone about this. She explained that she was scared
      and shocked and did not know whether [Beener] might hurt her
      “in a different kind of way if [she] told” anyone what [he] was
      doing to her. (Id. at 55).

            [Victim] also testified about other times when she and
      [Beener] were in his and her aunt’s bedroom watching her favorite
      movie “Jaws” and [Beener] would turn on a VHS tape of
      pornography “out of nowhere” and masturbate. (Id. at 56-57).
      [She] testified about how a couple of times in the garage either
      [Beener] took off her pants or asked her to do it, and then touched
      her butt and her vagina with his penis. She described his poking
      her with his penis by the crack of her butt and everywhere around
      her vagina. She explained that his penis did not enter her vaginal
      canal but poked by the lips, around it, and on top. [Beener] also
      put his penis in [Victim]’s mouth several times while he
      masturbated.

            [Victim] testified that on numerous occasions [Beener]
      would take her in the garage and do fun things with her like play
      guitar or work on his old car before he would do the “bad stuff”.
      (Id. at 62-63). From photographs taken by law enforcement,
      [Victim] identified the white chair [Beener] made her sit on in the
      garage while he performed the “bad stuff.” (Id. at 65-66;
      Photographs, Commonwealth Exhibits C-2, 3, 4).

(Trial Ct. Op., at 12-16) (most record citations omitted; some record citation

formatting provided).

      When she was 12 years old the Victim stopped regularly going to the

Beeners’ home because she was old enough to stay home alone and did not

want Beener to do things to her anymore. Although she conceded that she

                                     -9-
J-A19042-23

occasionally called him for rides when she was older, she explained she would

sit in the back seat. She testified that she enjoyed going over for dinners with

her aunt and cousin when her uncle was upstairs. The Victim said how upset

she is that she and her aunt are no longer close since she came forward about

Beener’s actions and explained that she contacted a television show to tell her

story because she wanted her aunt to believe her.

      Sometime in 2016, when she was approximately 19 years old, she told

Delgado about the things Beener had done to her, begging her not to tell

anyone else because she was scared, although she could not explain why. The

Victim testified that she did not ask Delgado to give a statement on her behalf

or tell her what to say.

      The first time the Victim told anyone other than Delgado about the abuse

was after the September 21, 2018 incident when she told Young, her parents

and the police.    Although she did not tell Young everything at first, she

eventually wrote it all down for him because she expresses herself better in

writing. She explained that she keeps things to herself and was angry with

herself for not saying anything sooner.

                                      2.

      Delgado testified that she and the Victim became friends when Delgado

was 14 years old, that their relationship became romantic, but that they are

no longer on speaking terms because they grew apart. Sometime in 2015,

when Delgado was about 16 years’ old, the Victim told her that Beener had

                                     - 10 -
J-A19042-23

molested her when she was a child. The molestation examples provided by

Delgado were consistent with what the Victim told police. Delgado explained

that the Victim was afraid her aunt would disown her so she only told Delgado

bits of information about the molestation over time.

      After Beener touched the Victim at Prima on September 21, 2018,

Delgado said the Victim was upset, crying and kind of hysterical. Delgado and

the Victim agreed that it was time she told people about what Beener had

done because the Victim’s brother had a baby daughter and she did not want

the same things happening to her. Although the Victim drove Delgado to the

police station, she did not really want Delgado to give a statement and did not

tell her what to say. However, Delgado believed it was a good idea for her to

give a statement since the Victim previously had told her about it, and she did

it on her own terms and truthfully.

                                       3.

      Joseph Morgan testified that Beener’s wife, Kelly, is his sister and that

he has known Beener since the two got married 40 years ago. He testified

that his daughter changed during the period when she spent so much time at

the Beener’s home, including not wanting to attend school, disliking men,

being withdrawn and having a fit when her parents went to bed together.

When the Victim would come home from the Beeners’ home with money, she

would tell her father it was from Beener, but that she did not know why he

                                      - 11 -
J-A19042-23

gave it to her.     When Mr. Morgan would ask his daughter if Beener ever

touched her inappropriately, she denied it.

       Mr. Morgan testified that when he picked her up in Phoenixville in the

early morning of September 21, 2018, to take her to the police department to

report the abuse, the Victim was upset, crying and shaking.            Finally, he

explained that the Victim loved his sister, her Aunt Kelly, very much and that

she was like a mom to her, but that his sister no longer speaks to them.

                                               4.

       Young testified that he has known the Victim since they were 13 years

old and that she now is his girlfriend. He first learned of Beener’s abuse when

Beener touched the Victim at the bar on September 21, 2018. Because the

Victim does not like talking about her past, it was difficult for her to tell Young

the details of the abuse. (See id. at 153). He testified “with certainty” that

a private investigator for the defense never approached him to talk about the

case. (Trial Ct. Op., at 20); (see N.T. Trial, 2/01/22, at 154).7

____________________________________________

7 The Commonwealth also presented the stipulation that if called to testify,

Carl Hessler, a Montgomery County crime and court reporter, would testify
that the Victim did not contact him and that any information he obtained and
posted was from the court docket. The Commonwealth introduced stipulations
about the testimony of Detective Johnson and Corporal Natale. Phoenixville
Police Patrol Officer Dobry testified about the “bare summary” of the brief
statement he took from the Victim after speaking with her for 15 minutes at
2:30 a.m. on September 21, 2018. The prosecutor explained the unsuccessful
efforts to locate the Victim’s friend Megan True.

                                          - 12 -
J-A19042-23

                                     E.

     After the court denied the defense’s motion for acquittal, Beener

presented the testimony of his son, Gregory Beener, and of private

investigator, Sean Hawke.

                                     1.

     Gregory Beener, the son of Beener and Kelly Beener, is an electrical

engineer who was living with his parents from the relevant period of 2003

through 2009 and resides with them now. He testified that the Victim’s father

dropped her off in the mornings most weekdays and some weekends while

Mr. Morgan was at work. He described the Victim as happy to be there and

stated that she would go shopping with his mother, watch movies with his

parents, play board games and go swimming. The Victim also would bring

friends over sometimes to go swimming and eat dinner before going home.

     He explained that he went to middle school, high school, started working

and eventually went to college between 2000 and 2006. According to Mr.

Beener, the Victim was the center of attention when she was at the house,

and he believed that at least two family members were with her at all times.

Mr. Beener testified that because of the stable environment offered by the

Beeners, the Victim seemed more comfortable around his parents than at her

own home. He stated that when the Victim would go upstairs to see his dad

and watch movies, he would stay downstairs playing video games. Although

his dad might have been alone in a room with the Victim, he was not alone in

                                   - 13 -
J-A19042-23

the house and never for any extended period of time. Mr. Beener agreed that

his father spent a lot of time in the garage working on an old car, but he

insisted he could not think of a single instance when the Victim would have

gone in there or had reason to go in there.       He testified that he found a

pornographic videotape in his parents’ bedroom when he was young.

      Mr. Beener believed the Victim was manipulative, always had a

secondary motive, and that based on his interaction with her as she got older,

she was unable to tell the truth or have a sincere conversation. For example,

he described how the Victim would manipulate him to give her rides at times

that were inconvenient for him and he believed the reasons she gave him were

not true. In his opinion, the Victim’s parents were the same way, and he could

never tell whether they were telling him the truth. (See id. at 62). Mr. Beener

believed the Victim’s allegations about being molested every day were all a lie

and “absurd.” (N.T. Trial, 2/02/22, at 63, 67).

      He conceded that he was in school or working a lot during the relevant

time period, and that he also participated in after school sports, hung out with

his friends and only came home for dinner. He did not go in the bedroom to

play the board games with the Victim and his father or follow them out to the

car when his dad would drive her home, although he sometimes saw them

from·his window. His dad kept a lot of balloons around the house and in the

pool and he gave the Victim loose change. According to Mr. Beener, the Victim

adored his mother and his father.

                                     - 14 -
J-A19042-23

      Although he was not there at the time, Mr. Beener testified that in his

opinion, Ms. DeAngelo was lying about the 2014 incident with her daughter,

explaining that he arrived home that day, as Ms. DeAngelo “was losing her

temper about something, and [he] didn’t see anything.” (Id. at 81-82). He

believes that his father only took a plea in that case to prevent further

exposure. (Id. at 81-82).

                                     2.

      Defense witness Sean Hawke testified he is a self-employed private

detective who has been licensed for approximately 20 years. According to Mr.

Hawke, he conducted a brief interview of Young during which he did not take

contemporaneous notes, and then spoke with the Victim on the front porch of

her home. Mr. Hawke testified that he asked the Victim whether her uncle

had ever penetrated her in any way and she said no. Although the Victim

seemed to understand what penetration meant, Mr. Hawke admitted he did

not explain the legal definition to her. Mr. Hawke only wrote down one phrase

from his interview with the Victim and no notes from his conversation with

Young.    He did not take any verbatim written statements or record the

interviews of either the Victim or Young. However, the Victim emailed to Mr.

Hawke the memorandum she had typed up describing the abuse. Mr. Hawke

testified that he had destroyed his notes shortly after Beener had pleaded

guilty.

                                   - 15 -
J-A19042-23

                                               F.

       On Monday, February 7, 2022, the trial court convicted Beener of the

foregoing charges. (See N.T. Verdict, 2/07/22, at 2-4). The court revoked

bail but deferred sentencing pending a presentence investigation report and a

PPI evaluation report. (See id. at 5). On May 26, 2022, the court sentenced

Beener to an aggregate term of not less than 20 nor more than 40 years’

imprisonment. After the court denied Beener’s post-sentence motion, he filed

a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

       Beener raises four issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether the trial

court erred in denying his post-sentence motion based on after-discovered

evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to admit the

Victim’s prior statements pursuant to the Rape Shield law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104;

(3) whether the trial court erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence from

2014; and (4) whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. (See

Beener’s Brief, at 2-3).8

____________________________________________

8 The Commonwealth failed to file a brief in this matter despite being advised

on May 16, 2023, that its deadline to do was June 14, 2023. On July 21,
2023, this Court notified counsel of the scheduled argument date in this matter
and that “[p]arties who failed to meet filing deadlines are PRECLUDED FROM
ARGUMENT.” (Correspondence, 7/21/23, at 1) (emphasis in original). The
Commonwealth also has failed to sign and return the acknowledgement of the
argument date as requested in the same correspondence. (See id.).

                                          - 16 -
J-A19042-23

                                               II.

       Beener argues that the trial court erred in denying his post-sentence

motion based on after-discovered evidence where the case hinged on the

Victim’s testimony. He maintains that the Victim’s text messages in which

she says she was not raped contradicts the rape charge and conviction, thus

entitling him to a new trial.9

       A four-pronged test for after-discovered evidence provides that a

defendant must prove each of the following factors by a preponderance of the

evidence:

       that the evidence (1) could not have been obtained prior to the
       conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence;10
____________________________________________

9 Our standard of review of a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial

on the basis of after-discovered evidence is well settled:

       [W]e ask only if the court committed an abuse of discretion or an
       error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Discretion
       is abused when the course pursued represents not merely an error
       of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable
       or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that
       the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. If a
       trial court erred in its application of the law, an appellate court will
       correct the error.

Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356, 361 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal
denied, 14 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

10 “To obtain a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, the petitioner

must explain inter alia why he could not have produced the evidence in
question at or before trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Padillas,
997 A.2d at 363 (citation and brackets omitted). “[A] defendant who fails to
question or investigate an obvious, available source of information, cannot
later claim evidence from that source constitutes newly discovered evidence.”
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 17 -
J-A19042-23

       (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used
       solely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and (4) would likely
       result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted.

Commonwealth v. Felder, 247 A.3d 14, at *17 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 17,

2021) (citing Padillas, 997 A.2d at 363) (quotation marks omitted).

       The trial court found that Beener did not meet that burden explaining

that it reviewed the text messages screen shots and that they were consistent

with the Victim’s trial testimony and, therefore, even if Beener could not have

obtained them prior to trial,11 they are merely corroborative or cumulative.

(See Trial Ct. Op., at 32-33). We discern no abuse of discretion.12

       Private investigator Hawke testified at trial that the Victim denied

penetration by Beener. (See N.T. Trial, 2/02/22, at 94). In fact, the Victim

testified that Beener’s penis did not penetrate her vaginal canal. (See N.T.,

2/01/22, at 59). However, she described incidents in the garage when she

stated that Beener poked her with his penis everywhere around her vagina,

including by the lips, around it and on top, and explained that he put his penis

____________________________________________

Id. at 364 (citation omitted). “[A] defendant has a duty to bring forth any
relevant evidence in his behalf.” Id. (citation omitted).

11 Beener fails to provide evidence of why counsel would not have obtained

the cell phone records of the complainant prior to the conclusion of trial.

12 “If the trial court does not grant a new trial, the four hurdles become even

harder to clear on appeal due to our scope and deferential standard of review
[because] the implications of after-discovered evidence are peculiarly within
the discretion of the trial court.” Id. (citation, footnote and internal quotation
marks omitted; emphasis in original).

                                          - 18 -
J-A19042-23

in her mouth several times while he masturbated. (See id. at 58-60, 62). In

the text messages, the Victim admits that she does not understand “any of

this court stuff,” stating that Beener did not rape her, but did “lots of gross

things” and that he “put his dick in her mouth.” (Post-Sentence Motion, at

Exhibit A).

       It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to interpret the text

messages to mean that the Victim did not understand that the legal definition

of rape includes not only vaginal penetration, but also entrance into the labia

or mouth.13 The text messages merely corroborates the trial testimony that

the Victim denied vaginal penetration, but that Beener raped her by

penetrating her orally and when his penis entered her labia. Therefore, the

second part of the test fails.

       As to the third and fourth prongs, Beener himself states that the text

messages are important because the entire case hinges on the credibility of

the Victim’s testimony that he sexually assaulted her. It is difficult then to

see how they would be used as anything other than to impeach the Victim’s

____________________________________________

13 “A person commits [rape] when he or she engages in sexual intercourse

with a complainant … [w]ho is less than 13 years of age.” 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 3121(a)(6). “In addition to its ordinary meaning, [sexual intercourse]
includes intercourse per [mouth] or per anus, with some penetration however
slight[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3101. “Penetration need not reach the vagina or farther
reaches of female genitalia.” In re A.D., 771 A.2d 45, 49 (Pa. Super. 2001)
(citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Bowes, 74 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super.
1950) (holding that entry into the labia is sufficient to prove penetration).

                                          - 19 -
J-A19042-23

credibility. Additionally, because the text messages merely corroborate the

trial evidence, their admission would not be likely to result in a different verdict

if a new trial were granted.

       Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to grant Beener’s motion for a new trial based on after-discovered

evidence. See Padillas, 997 A.2d at 361. This issue lacks merit.

                                           III.

       Beener argues that the trial court erred when, on the basis of the Rape

Shield Law, it denied his motion in limine to introduce the Victim’s earlier

police report of sexual abuse filed in another county against a wholly unrelated

defendant.14, 15     He maintains that the purpose of the evidence was to

establish the Victim’s alleged history of manipulation and false reporting, not

to attack her chastity or character generally and, therefore, the Rape Shield

____________________________________________

14 Our standard of review of this matter is well-settled.          “When reviewing a
trial court’s denial of a motion in limine, this Court applies an evidentiary
abuse of discretion standard of review.” Commonwealth v. Schley, 136
A.3d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). “Abuse of discretion is
not merely an error of judgment, but rather where the judgment is manifestly
unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that
the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Commonwealth
v. Herring, 271 A.3d 911, 918 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 288 A.3d
865 (Pa. 2022) (citation omitted).

15 Beener also maintains that preclusion of this evidence violated his
constitutional right to confrontation. (See Beener’s Brief, at 11). However,
other than making the conclusory statement that some applications of the
Rape Shield Law can violate a defendant’s right to confrontation, he does not
develop this claim in any meaningful way.

                                          - 20 -
J-A19042-23

Law was inapplicable. He argues that this Court should grant a new trial based

on Commonwealth v. Palmore, 195 A.3d 291 (Pa. Super. 2018),16 and

Schley, 136 A.3d at 515.

       Pursuant to the Rape Shield Law:

       (a) General rule.—Evidence of specific instances of the
       alleged victim’s past sexual conduct, past sexual victimization,
       allegations of past sexual victimization … shall not be
       admissible in prosecutions of any offense listed in subsection
       (c)[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 3104(a) (emphases added).

       The purpose of the Rape Shield Law is to “prevent a trial from shifting

its focus from the culpability of the accused toward the virtue and chastity of

the victim ... [and] to exclude irrelevant and abusive inquiries regarding prior

sexual conduct of sexual assault complainants.” Commonwealth v. K.S.F.,

____________________________________________

16 Palmore is factually distinguishable and not persuasive.   In Palmore, the
appellant reported to the complainant’s boyfriend that he saw her having sex
with his roommate and appellant’s trial theory was that the complainant
fabricated the assault against him to lower his credibility in her boyfriend’s
eyes. This Court held that the trial court erred in precluding the evidence
where the “timing of victim’s report and defendant’s communication with
boyfriend was logically consistent with defendant’s theory, as victim admitted
she saw defendant’s message to boyfriend before she contacted police, and
defendant was not seeking to impugn victim’s character or to label her as
promiscuous.” Palmore, 195 A.3d at 294-95.

Here, Beener sought to introduce evidence of a previous sexual assault report
by the Victim in a case in a different county, against someone with no
connection to Beener, “based on hearsay, speculation and conjecture.” (Trial
Ct. Op., at 35). The Chester County case was wholly unrelated to this case
and none of its facts could be relevant to any alleged motive to fabricate a
claim against Beener in this case. Palmore is inapposite.

                                          - 21 -
J-A19042-23

102 A.3d at 480, 484 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations omitted); see also id. at

483–84 (stating that “[e]vidence that tends to impeach a witness’ credibility

is not necessarily inadmissible because of the Rape Shield Law.”).

       In Schley, the defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of

a child (EWOC) for failing to report abuse allegations made by her adoptive

child about Schley’s husband, Charles. The defendant sought to introduce

evidence of the complainant’s three previous false sexual assault allegations

against non-family members, which she argued “was highly probative of

Schley’s reasonable belief that the complainant’s allegation against Charles

was just one more in a series of fabrications, and Schley’s conclusion that the

latest allegation was similarly untruthful.”17 Schley, 136 A.3d at 518 (record

citation and brackets omitted).

       The trial court denied Schley’s motion in limine, ruling that the Rape

Shield Law precluded the introduction of the false sexual assault allegations

into evidence. On appeal, this Court disagreed and found that the Rape Shield

Law did not bar the complainant’s false sexual assault allegations because the

evidence did not concern her past sexual conduct or reflect on her reputation

for chastity. See id. at 517-18.

____________________________________________

17 See Commonwealth v. Cardwell, 515 A.2d 311, 314 (Pa. Super. 1986)

(stating that the crime of EWOC requires a showing of a knowing violation of
a duty of care).

                                          - 22 -
J-A19042-23

      However, we explained that even if the evidence was improperly

precluded on the basis of the Rape Shield Law, it only would be properly

admitted if relevant and probative and Schley was only due relief if she was

prejudiced by the court’s decision.    See id. at 518; see also Pa.R.E. 401

(providing that evidence is relevant where “it has any tendency to make a fact

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and it “is of

consequence in determining the action.”).

      Schley argued that “the excluded evidence was probative of whether []

[she] actually was aware that the complainant was in circumstances that could

have threatened her physical or psychological welfare.”        Id. (emphasis

omitted).   This Court concluded that Schley was prejudiced because, “by

denying [her] [m]otion before trial, the trial court’s decision inherently

affected [] Schley’s overall theory of defense and trial strategy, including,

among other things, her decision whether or not to testify.” Id. at 518 (record

citation and brackets omitted).

      In this case, Beener argues that the evidence was improperly precluded

pursuant to the Rape Shield Law because it does not concern the Victim’s past

sexual conduct or reflect on her reputation for chastity. We agree but that

does not end our inquiry. See Schley at 518.

      The trial court observed that “[i]n addition to the entirely speculative

nature of the proposed evidence, which th[e] court found completely

irrelevant, Beener failed to show how this evidence of a prior allegedly false

                                      - 23 -
J-A19042-23

report against someone other than him would exculpate [him].”                    (Trial Ct.

Op., at 35-36).

       We agree.      Unlike in Schley where the evidence was relevant to a

material issue in the case whether the defendant knowingly endangered the

welfare of the complainant, Beener merely speculates that the Victim’s report

to the Chester County police contained allegedly false information about the

rape by a third party. Beener has also failed to establish that the outcome of

the proceedings would have been any different had this evidence been

admitted.

       Accordingly, because he failed to establish prejudice, Beener is due no

relief on his claim that the trial court improperly precluded the speculative

evidence that the Victim misreported another rape to law enforcement in

Chester County. See Schley, 136 A.3d at 518.

                                               IV.

       Beener    complains      that   the      trial   court   erred   in   granting   the

Commonwealth’s motion to admit prior bad acts evidence.18 Specifically, he

asserts that the court allowed the “prejudicial” testimony concerning an

incident involving him masturbating in plain view of a neighbor child and

exclaiming to her mother that he was only trying to give the girl a balloon.

____________________________________________

18 As we observed previously, this Court reviews the trial court’s decision to

admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. See footnote 14, supra.

                                          - 24 -
J-A19042-23

      It is well-settled that:

      Evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or other acts” is inadmissible
      solely to show a defendant’s bad character or his propensity for
      committing criminal acts. Pa.RE. 404(b)(1). Such evidence is
      admissible, however, when relevant for another purpose,
      including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
      knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Pa.RE. 404(b)(2).
      This Court has also recognized the res gestae exception,
      permitting the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts
      to tell “the complete story.” Such evidence may be admitted,
      however, “only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs
      its potential for unfair prejudice.” Pa.RE. 404(b)(2).

Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied,

574 U.S. 863 (2014) (case citations omitted).

      Relevant and probative evidence that bolsters a sexual assault victim’s

credibility is admissible in certain circumstances because “[b]y their very

nature, sexual assault cases have a pronounced dearth of independent

eyewitnesses, and there is rarely any accompanying physical evidence .... [In

these] cases the credibility of the complaining witness is always an issue.”

Commonwealth v. Wattley, 880 A.2d 682, 687 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation

omitted).   The trial court must first examine the details and surrounding

circumstances of each criminal incident to ensure that the evidence reveals

criminal conduct which is distinctive. See Commonwealth v. Saez, 225 A.3d

169, 180 (Pa. Super. 2019), appeal denied, 234 A.3d 407 (Pa. 2020).

“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.” Saez, 225 A.3d at

                                    - 25 -
J-A19042-23

180 (citation omitted).   There is no specific timeframe that dictates the

applicability of an exception, rather the remoteness of relevant evidence

affects the weight of that evidence and not its admissibility.             See

Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893, 904-05 (Pa. 2002).

     “Rule 404(b) does not distinguish between prior and subsequent acts.”

Wattley, 880 A.2d at 685 (citation omitted).        Although evidence of a

subsequent offense may be less probative of intent than evidence of a prior

offense, “evidence of a subsequent offense can still show the defendant’s

intent at the time of the prior offense." Id. at 687 (citation omitted). As it

relates to the exception for a common scheme, plan or design, this Court has

observed that:

     [E]vidence of other crimes or acts may be admitted if such
     evidence proves a common scheme, plan or design embracing
     commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that
     proof of one tends to prove the others. A common scheme may
     be relevant to establish any element of a crime, where intent may
     be shown through a pattern of similar acts.

           The degree of similarity is an important factor in
     determining the admissibility of other crimes or bad acts under
     this exception. See Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877,
     879 (Pa. Super. 1996) (finding testimony of prior sexual abuse
     upon other children in the same family relevant to demonstrate a
     common scheme); Commonwealth v. Smith, 431 Pa. Super. 91,
     635 A.2d 1086, 1089-1090 (1993) (holding evidence of prior
     crimes was admissible to show a recurring sequence of acts by
     defendant). Furthermore, the importance of the intervening time
     period is inversely proportional to the similarity of the crimes in
     question.

Saez, 225 A.3d at 178 (quotation marks and some citations omitted). “The

common scheme exception does not require that the two scenarios be

                                    - 26 -
J-A19042-23

identical in every respect.” Commonwealth v. Gilliam. 249 A.3d 257, 272

(Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted; emphasis in original).

      Once the court concludes that the evidence is admissible for one or more

of the limited purposes, it must then conduct a balancing inquiry to determine

whether the evidence’s probative value outweighs its potential for unfair

prejudice. Hairston, 84 A.3d at 665 (citation omitted). Evidence of other

crimes will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful to the defense. See

id. at 666. Rather, “‘unfair prejudice means a tendency to suggest a decision

on an improper basis or to divert the [factfinder’s] attention away from its

duty of weighing the evidence impartially.”     Id. at 666 (citing Pa.RE. 403

cmt.). This Court “must presume that the trial judge, sitting as factfinder,

would ignore any potentially prejudicial information and remain objective in

weighing the evidence in order to render a true verdict.” Wattley, 880 A.2d

at 685 (citations omitted).

      Instantly, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of Beener’s

subsequent bad act to establish a common scheme, plan or design, his intent,

and to bolster the Victim’s credibility. The trial court found sufficient factual

similarities between acts committed against the Victim and those committed

against Ms. DeAngelo’s daughter on June 6, 2014, and that the evidence’s

admission was not unfairly prejudicial. We discern no abuse of discretion.

      The crimes against the Victim and Ms. DeAngelo’s daughter (M.D.)

included several similarities. Both the Victim and M.D. were very young (M.D.

                                     - 27 -
J-A19042-23

was five years old and the Victim’s first memory of Beener’s sexual conduct

was when she was six years of age). The girls were both Caucasian. The

crimes involved similar sex acts, including Beener masturbating in front of

both the Victim and M.D. This took place at Beener’s residence where he lured

both victims with balloons.    Both victims were previously acquainted with

Beener (the Victim was Beener’s niece by marriage and M.D. was his next-

door neighbor and the granddaughter of his wife’s best friend, who also lived

in the house).

      Additionally, although there were approximately five years between the

incidents, the trial court found that the prior crime was not too remote to be

relevant. We discern no abuse of discretion where the two acts bore such

similarities and the remoteness of the crime went to its weight, not its

admissibilty. See Saez, 225 A.3d at 178 (the importance of the intervening

time period "is inversely proportional to the similarity of the crimes in

question."); Drumheller, 808 A.2d at 904-05. Finally, we agree with the trial

court that the prior bad acts evidence was not unduly prejudicial. Its probative

value outweighed its prejudicial effect since it did not tend to suggest an

improper verdict, particularly where Beener opted for a bench trial and we

presume that the trial court remained objective in weighing the evidence. See

Wattley, 880 A.2d at 685 (citations omitted). This issue fails.

                                     - 28 -
J-A19042-23

                                               V.

       Beener maintains that the verdict was against the weight of the

evidence.19 His “argument, in essence, [is] that [the trial court] should not

have found [Ms.] Morgan’s testimony credible and the evidence adduced at

trial is certainly against the verdict for rape of a child[.]” (Beener’s Brief, at

17).

       For an appellant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the
       evidence, he must establish that the evidence was so tenuous,
       vague, and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the
       court. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying
       a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or
       was not against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the weight
       of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to
       believe all, none, or some of the evidence and to determine the
       credibility of the witnesses.

Commonwealth v. Gilliam, 249 A.3d 257, 269-70 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal

denied, 267 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2021) (citations, quotation marks and brackets

omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 562 (Pa.

Super. 2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d 933 (Pa. 2006) (“It [is] within the

____________________________________________

19 It is well-settled that:

       [O]ur standard of review for a weight of the evidence claim is an
       abuse of discretion. As we have often reminded appellants, [a]n
       appellate court’s standard of review when presented with a weight
       of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
       applied by the trial court. 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.

Commonwealth v. Rogers, 259 A.3d 539, 541 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation,
quotation marks and emphases omitted).

                                          - 29 -
J-A19042-23

province of the ... fact-finder to resolve all issues of credibility, resolve

conflicts in evidence, make reasonable inferences from the evidence, believe

all, none, or some of the evidence, and ultimately adjudge appellant guilty.”)

(citation omitted).

      The trial court explains:

      … [T]his court found [Victim] to be an unsophisticated and very
      credible and courageous witness. She provided clear testimony
      about all of the events occurring over several years, beginning
      with the first she could specifically remember that occurred in the
      Beener’s bed when she was six (6) years old [through her
      testimony] about several incidents that occurred when she was
      nine (9) or ten (10) and explained that she stopped going to
      Appellant’s house when she was twelve (12) years old. She did
      not testify using generic descriptions of the sexual assaults by
      [Beener] but, rather, she testified in detail as to the different acts
      on multiple occasions that he engaged in. She described the
      contents of the garage, including the white chair [Beener] would
      make her sit on while he masturbated as she held his testicles.

            [Victim] also candidly admitted that [Beener] did fun things
      with her as well as the “bad stuff” and … [t]he court was also
      struck by the love [Victim] clearly felt for her Aunt Kelly, … and
      her sense of loss and how much she missed her aunt since [she]
      came forward in 2018. Finally, the court credited the testimony
      of Esmeralda Delgado, Trevor Young and Mr. Morgan.              In
      particular, the court took into account the fact that Ms. Delgado
      and [Victim] were no longer friends and had not spoken for some
      time, and yet Ms. Delgado willingly came into court and
      corroborated several aspects of [Victim’s] testimony.

            Contrary to [Beener]’s assertion, the court also found the
      majority of Gregory Beener’s testimony to be credible. … Mr.
      Beener testified candidly that he was not always home when
      [Victim] was there, and when he was home, he was rarely in the
      same room with her and his father. Moreover, Mr. Beener
      corroborated multiple aspects of [Victim’s] testimony, including
      how much [she] loved her aunt, his mother, that his father had a
      car in the garage that he was working on, his father enjoyed
      having balloons around the house and in the pool, he found a

                                     - 30 -
J-A19042-23

      pornographic videotape in his parents’ bedroom when he was
      young, and that [Victim] would go upstairs with his father and
      watch movies while he was downstairs playing video games. The
      court has no doubt Mr. Beener loves his father and was not
      surprised that Mr. Beener believed that both Emily DeAngelo and
      [Victim] were lying.

      … [T]he court found Mr. Hawke’s testimony regarding his
      conversation with [Victim] to be credible. In particular, Mr. Hawke
      testified that [she] denied any penetration by [Beener], but
      conceded that he had not explained the legal definition of rape to
      her either before he asked the question or after her response. As
      previously stated, this court found [Victim] to be an
      unsophisticated young woman who testified truthfully regarding
      [Beener]’s assaults upon her at a time when she was vulnerable
      and did not understand the legal implications of his acts. …

            Finally, this court as factfinder found as a matter of law that
      [Beener] penetrated [Victim] pursuant to the definition of sexual
      intercourse when he entered her labia on at least two (2)
      occasions with his penis in addition to penetrating her mouth as
      he masturbated on more than one occasion when [Victim] was
      between the ages of six (6) and twelve (12). Accordingly,
      [Beener]’s final issue on appeal must also fail.

(Trial Ct. Op., at 46-48).

      We discern no abuse of discretion. The court was free to believe all,

some or none of the evidence, and to the extent there were any

inconsistencies, it was within its province to resolve them. See Charlton,

902 A.2d at 562. We will not re-weigh the evidence or override the trial court’s

credibility decision. See Gilliam, 249 A.3d at 269-70. Because we discern

no abuse of discretion, this issue lacks merit. See Rogers, 259 A.3d at 541.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 31 -
J-A19042-23

Date: 10/17/2023

                   - 32 -