Court Opinion

ID: 9940111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 17:12:30.681124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:33.199744
License: Public Domain

J-S34021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  MICHAEL CRAIG PHILLIPS                       :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1246 WDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 5, 2021
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
              Criminal Division at No: CP-04-CR-0001529-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                         FILED: February 13, 2024

       Michael Craig Phillips (Appellant) was found guilty, following a jury trial,

of 12 sexual offenses against the minor child, D.M. Three of the counts were

rooted in D.M.’s allegation that Appellant showed her a video depicting “gay

pornography.”1 To corroborate that claim, the Commonwealth was permitted

to introduce into evidence a photograph of Appellant performing fellatio on

____________________________________________

1 Appellant was convicted of Count 1 - Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse,

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(b); Count 2 - Unlawful Contact with a Minor, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6318(a)(1); Counts 3 and 4 - Aggravated Indecent Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
3125(a)(7); Count 5 - Indecent Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7); Count 6
- Endangering Welfare of Children, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a); Count 7 -
Corruption of Minors, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1)(ii); Count 8 – Criminal Use
of Communication Facility, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a); Count 9 – Indecent
Assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(7); Count 10 – Disseminating Explicit Sexual
Material to a Minor, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5903(c)(1); Count 11 – Indecent Assault,
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(8); and Count 12 – Indecent Assault Without Consent,
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). Appellant was charged with Counts 7, 8, and 10
based on his display of the pornographic video to D.M.
J-S34021-23

another man. Appellant now contends in this appeal that the judgment of

sentence must be vacated in its entirety because the photo was both irrelevant

and highly prejudicial at his trial.2 We find merit in Appellant’s claim that the

photo was irrelevant and should have been excluded. However, we affirm the

judgment of sentence because Appellant agreed at trial to have the jury

instructed that the photo could be considered for the very purposes he now

claims are prejudicial.

       Appellant met Sydni Phillips in 2015, and they married in 2017. The

minor victim in this case, D.M., is Phillips’ daughter from a prior marriage. At

all relevant times, D.M. resided with Phillips and Appellant on weekends and

with her biological father on weekdays.

       During their marriage, Appellant encouraged Phillips to seek out other

sexual partners. N.T. Trial, 7/8/2021, at 106-07. He even drafted a “sex

contract” to formalize the “rules and expectations” of such extramarital

encounters. See id., at 47-48. The terms of this contract made it clear that

Appellant “approved enthusiastically” of the arrangement. Id.

       In fact, Appellant more than insinuated his own sexual interest in other

men.     A condition in the contract was the non-use of a condom during

intercourse with Phillips so that Appellant would have “a little memento of

____________________________________________

2 Appellant also has challenged the verdict as being against the weight of the

evidence. See Appellant’s Brief, at 14. In substance, this claim merely
reiterates the evidentiary issue, so no additional consideration is warranted.

                                           -2-
J-S34021-23

your time together.”        Id., at 49.        Appellant also demanded that Phillips’

partners send him “pictures, videos, or whatever else” they could provide. Id.

       Appellant’s penchant for recording and viewing sexual acts was the

unintended catalyst of the present case.             In December 2019, D.M.’s step-

sister, E.P., admitted to her mother that D.M. had shown her videos on Phillips’

phone of Appellant and Phillips having sex.3 E.P., who was six years old at

the time, had gotten uncomfortable playing a “sexy game” with a friend, and

she had learned that behavior from the explicit material D.M. had shown her.

E.P. stated further that D.M., who was then nine years old, “had licked her

vagina while they were in their bed.” N.T. Trial, 7/7/2021, at 77, 81. When

questioned further by her mother, E.P. relayed being told by D.M. that

Appellant “touches her vagina.” Id., at 84.

       The children’s statements were reported to the police. Soon after that,

the Beaver County Children and Youth Services agency (CYS) arranged for a

forensic interviewer to speak with D.M. and E.P. In her interview with a CYS

caseworker, D.M. stated that Appellant would sometimes “lick” her vagina,

and she recounted one occasion, when she was about five years old, in which

Phillips caught Appellant in the act of touching her genitals. See N.T. Trial,

7/9/2021, at 20-24.

____________________________________________

3 E.P. is a daughter from Appellant’s prior marriage who resided at all relevant

times with her mother. Appellant and Phillips also had two children together,
neither of whom were involved in the present case.

                                           -3-
J-S34021-23

      She recalled that on another occasion in 2017, when D.M. was about

seven years old, Appellant reportedly showed her “gay pornography” on his

cell phone. See id., at 25. Finally, D.M. described a third incident, when she

was about nine years old, in which Appellant touched her vagina while the two

were in a bed. Id., at 28. The police contacted Appellant and Phillips after

the interview, and both denied that the incidents described by D.M. had ever

occurred.

      In February 2020, while D.M.’s claims were still being investigated by

the police, Appellant and Phillips met a man named Z.T., who moved into their

home in March of that year.      The three of them began a relationship in

accordance with the “sex contract” Appellant had drafted.       In July 2020,

Phillips and Z.T. moved out of Appellant’s home.     During that period, Z.T.

pressed Phillips to contact the police and substantiate D.M.’s allegations that

Appellant had sexually abused her.

      That same month, in July 2020, the police contacted Phillips for another

interview, and she acquiesced.     Phillips retracted her earlier statements,

asserting that, in 2016, she once had caught Appellant abusing D.M. in their

home, just as D.M. had described; she also had been told about the incident

in which the child was shown a pornographic video. See N.T. Trial, 7/8/2021,

at 72-76, 80-81. Despite fearing for D.M.’s safety, Phillips was reluctant to

report the incidents because she was financially dependent on Appellant. See

id., at 23-24.

                                     -4-
J-S34021-23

      Soon after Phillips’ second interview, the police obtained a warrant to

search Appellant’s cell phone. The phone contained pornographic photos and

videos depicting Phillips and Appellant taking part in various sexual acts. One

series of photos created on March 16, 2020, showed Appellant and Phillips

performing fellatio on Z.T.

      Prior to trial, the Commonwealth sought to admit one of those photos.

The proffered evidence, labeled “Commonwealth’s Exhibit 4,” was a full-color

print-out of the digital version of the photo. The image completely filled an

8.5 by 11-inch sheet of paper.

      The Commonwealth argued that the photo was relevant because several

of the charges, i.e., corruption of minors (Count 7), criminal use of a

communication facility (Count 8), and disseminating explicit sexual material

to a minor (Count 10), arose from D.M.’s claim that Appellant had shown her

a pornographic video of two men. The Commonwealth argued that the explicit

photo of Appellant and another man corroborated D.M.’s claim because it

demonstrated Appellant’s “sexual interest” in that kind of sexual activity.

      But [Phillips] is going to testify, I anticipate that she’s going to say
      that this has been a sexual interest of [Appellant’s] for years
      including the relevant time period in which [D.M.] was shown a
      photo, and then the photo just corroborates that it’s a continuing
      sexual interest of his.

      Otherwise, it, it seems unlikely for a man, who is married to a
      woman, for us to say that he’s watching gay pornography and
      showing it to a child when the natural thought process from that
      is that that’s not even a sexual interest of his.

N.T. Trial, 7/6/2021, at 10.

                                       -5-
J-S34021-23

      Later,   after   the   parties   had   given   opening   statements,     the

Commonwealth offered additional grounds for admitting the photo:

      The defense in their opening talked about [Phillips’] story
      changing because she fell in love with [Z.T.], moved him in and
      started having sex with him.           The photographs that the
      Commonwealth recovered from [Appellant’s] phone is, in fact,
      [evidence of] a three-way sexual relationship with [Appellant,
      Phillips, and Z.T.]. I believe that door's open now, and I can show
      that photo, so I believe that door has been opened, and now that
      I can actually show that photograph to [rebut the theory that] she
      was cheating on him.

N.T. Trial, 7.7/2021, at 232.

      In response, defense counsel disagreed that Appellant’s sexual

relationship with Z.T. had ever been disputed or otherwise put at issue. Id.,

at 233-34. The defense stipulated that Appellant and Z.T. had been sexually

involved prior to Phillips’ decision to support D.M.’s accusations against

Appellant. See id. It was only after Phillips and Z.T. had decided to become

sexually exclusive with each other, rather, that Phillips would have had a

motive to incriminate Appellant. See id, at 235-37.

      On the following day of the trial, the defense renewed its objection to

the admission of the photo exhibit. See N.T. Trial, 7/8/2021, at 52. After the

objection was overruled, the defense then requested, and was granted, a

cautionary jury instruction as to the photo’s possible relevance:

      The photo and reference to the photo is being admitted for the
      purposes of relating to the witness's relationship with [Z.T.] as
      well as with respect to the issue that relates to the alleged incident
      showing gay porn. Those are the purposes and reasons why this
      exhibit is being admitted, and that's what you will be considering.

                                       -6-
J-S34021-23

      You are, however, not to consider this evidence as probative,
      meaningful, for any other purpose including whether or not
      [Appellant] has a sexual interest in children.

Id., at 57. Defense counsel did not object to the instruction or renew the

earlier objections made with respect to the photo’s admission.

      In its closing statement to the jury, the Commonwealth again stated

that the subject photo exhibit was relevant only for “corroboration” of other

evidence:

      Next in this case, I admitted into evidence a photograph that was
      referred to by counsel for the Commonwealth as well as for
      [Appellant]. This photograph was admitted into evidence for the
      purpose of corroboration. It is not a pleasant photograph to look
      at necessarily. You should not let it stir up your emotions to the
      prejudice of [Appellant]. Your verdict must be based on a rational
      and fair consideration of all the evidence and not on passion or
      prejudice against [Appellant], the Commonwealth, or anyone else
      connected to this case.

N.T. Trial, 7/12/2021, at 95-96.

      Appellant was found guilty as charged, and the judgment of sentence

was entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County (trial court) on

November 5, 2021. Counsel for Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion

three days later. Counsel also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a

supplemental post-sentence motion, which the trial court granted, and a

supplemental post-sentence motion was timely filed. The trial court denied

                                     -7-
J-S34021-23

the supplemental post-sentence motion on July 27, 2022, and a timely notice

of appeal was filed on September 15, 2022.4

       In compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925, the trial court entered an opinion

giving the reasons why the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. See

Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 11/14/2022, at 12-15. As to the admission of

the disputed photo exhibit, the trial court first found that it was “highly

probative in corroborating” D.M.’s testimony that Appellant “showed D.M. gay

pornography on his phone.” Id., at 13. The trial court reasoned further that

“without the context provided by this documentary evidence . . . it would be

much easier for the jury to disbelieve D.M.’s testimony that [Appellant] had

been watching gay pornography.” Id., at 14.

       Further, the trial court found that the photo was relevant to corroborate

Phillips’ testimony regarding the nature of her relationship with Z.T., as well

as Appellant’s sexual interest in men. See id. It was noted by the trial court

that the photo “was contrary to the characterization” of the relationship made

by Appellant’s defense counsel in the opening statement. See id.

       In this appeal, Appellant’s only claim is that he is entitled to a new trial

as to all 12 of his convictions because he was unfairly prejudiced by the trial

court’s erroneous admission of the Commonwealth’s photo exhibit. He argues

that the photo was improperly admitted because under Pa.R.E. 404(b), it was

____________________________________________

4 Appellant’s counsel missed the deadline for filing an appeal, but
postconviction relief was granted on September 1, 2022, reinstating
Appellant’s appellate rights, nunc pro tunc.

                                           -8-
J-S34021-23

evidence of a “wrong or other act” that could not be used to prove Appellant’s

character or propensity to commit the charged crimes. See Appellant’s Brief,

at 9-13.

      The Commonwealth responds that the rule relied upon by Appellant

(Pa.R.E. 404(b)) does not apply because the parties had agreed at trial that

the photo did not depict a crime, wrong, or other act, as defined by the rule.

According to the Commonwealth, the photo was properly admitted because it

was relevant to prove issues of material fact, i.e., to bolster the credibility of

D.M. and Phillips, and thereby prove the charges arising from D.M. being

shown a pornographic video.

      “The question of admissibility of photographs . . . is a matter within the

discretion of the trial judge, and only an abuse of that discretion will constitute

reversible error.”   Commonwealth v. Stein, 548 A.2d 1230, 1233 (Pa.

Super. 1988).     An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s ruling

results from “manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will,

or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.” Commonwealth v. Laird,

988 A.2d 618, 636 (Pa. 2010). “Further, discretion is abused when the law is

either overridden or misapplied.” Commonwealth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723,

729 (Pa. 2014).

      When ruling on a photo’s admissibility, the trial court must apply a two-

step analysis. See Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 372 A.2d 687, 697 (Pa.

1977).     First, the trial court must determine whether the photo is

“inflammatory,” which is defined as casting “such an unfair light that it would

                                       -9-
J-S34021-23

tend to cloud an objective assessment of the guilt or innocence of the

defendant.”   Hubbard, 372 A.2d at 697.        If the photo is found to be

inflammatory, then it may be admitted only if the trial court determines it to

be “of such essential evidentiary value that [its] need clearly outweighs the

likelihood of [it] inflaming the passions of the jurors.” Commonwealth v.

Strong, 563 A.2d 479, 483 (Pa. 1989).

      Photos that are found not to be inflammatory are subject to the usual

relevance standard of evidence. See id. “Evidence is relevant if it logically

tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue

more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption

regarding the existence of a material fact.” Commonwealth v. Spiewak,

617 A.2d 696, 699 (Pa. 1992). In order for relevant evidence to be admissible,

its probative value must outweigh “its prejudicial impact.”       Id. (citing

Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 160 (Pa. 1978)).

      There is no need for the court to weigh the probative value of evidence

against its prejudicial impact when the evidence is completely irrelevant. See

Story, 383 A.2d at 160. On review of the erroneous admission of evidence

that is not relevant, an appellate court only has to assess whether the error

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.            See Commonwealth v.

Robinson, 721 A.2d 344, 350 (Pa. 1998). An error is harmless where:

      (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was
      de minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely
      cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially
      similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly
      admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so

                                    - 10 -
J-S34021-23

       overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so
       insignificant by comparison that the error could not have
       contributed to the verdict.

Id.

       Here, we agree in part with the Commonwealth that the photo’s

admissibility is not governed by Pa.R.E. 404(b).          When the parties were

litigating this issue at trial, they all concluded that the photo did not fall within

the purview of the rule, as it did not depict Appellant committing a crime, and

defense counsel made it clear that Appellant’s act of consensual oral sex with

another man did not qualify as a “prior bad act.” N.T. Trial, 7/6/2021, at 11;

N.T. Trial, 7/12/2021, at 25. Nor do we need to analyze the photo in the

context of the inflammatory evidence standard, as Appellant does not raise

that issue in his brief.5

       Since those standards of admissibility do not apply, the photo’s

admission is subject to the general test of relevance. The Commonwealth has

advanced two alternative ways in which the photo was relevant.             The first

proposed basis is that the photo demonstrated Appellant’s “sexual interest” in

other men, tending to make D.M.’s allegation of being shown “gay

pornography” more credible.              We find this argument to be entirely

unpersuasive.

____________________________________________

5 Appellant acknowledges in his brief that the parties had agreed at trial that

the subject photo was not evidence of a “prior bad act” or a crime for the
purposes of Pa.R.E. 404(b). See Appellant’s Brief, at 9. “Issues not raised in
the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

                                          - 11 -
J-S34021-23

        D.M. claimed that Appellant once showed her a video of two men

engaged in a sexual act, and the child described the video as “gay

pornography.”        The Commonwealth charged Appellant with three offenses

based    on   that    allegation:    corruption    of   minors;    criminal   use     of   a

communication facility; and disseminating sexually explicit material to a child.

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(a)(1)(ii), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a), and 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 5903(c)(1), respectively.

        While the act of showing a child pornography on an electronic device

would    certainly    establish     material   elements    of     those   offenses,     the

Commonwealth’s photo exhibit was simply not germane to any issues of

material fact. It was not alleged that the victim was ever shown the subject

photo. The fact that Appellant is bi-sexual did not make it any more or less

likely that he committed the above offenses by showing the child a

pornographic video. Nor did the photo depicting Appellant in a sexual act with

another man have any discernable bearing on D.M.’s veracity.

        Even if Appellant’s sexuality was somehow relevant, it was never in

dispute such that documentation of it could assist the jury in deciding the

existence of a material fact in this case. Appellant had admitted that he was

bi-sexual, and he did not object to the admission of a “sex contract” in which

he clearly expressed his desire for extramarital sexual relations with other

men. The enlarged and full color photo of Appellant engaged in a sexual act

with other consenting adults was not probative as to whether D.M. was shown

                                          - 12 -
J-S34021-23

a pornographic video of two men several years before that photo was even

taken.

      The Commonwealth’s alternative ground for the photo’s relevance is

that it rebutted the defense theory that Phillips had a motive to testify falsely

against Appellant. In the opening statement, defense counsel suggested that

Phillips had lied about witnessing D.M.’s sexual abuse so that she could “carry

on a relationship with [Z.T.]” N.T. Trial, 7/7/2021, at 41. The Commonwealth

argues that the photo undercuts that claim because it proves Appellant

consented to the sexual relationship between Phillips and Z.T.

      It evident from our review of the record that the Commonwealth has

misconstrued both the defense’s position and the import of the evidence it

sought to have admitted in rebuttal. The photo now at issue was created in

March 2020. Appellant never disputed that he and Phillips were both sexually

involved with Z.T. at that time. Phillips came forward to the police in July

2020, which temporally coincided with her decision to live with Z.T. after the

two of them moved out of Appellant’s house. Thus, the fact that Appellant

was intimate with Z.T. at the time the photo was taken in no way refutes the

defense’s theory about why Phillips later decided to testify against Appellant.

      Having found that the trial court erred in admitting the Commonwealth’s

photo exhibit, we must now determine whether its admission was harmless

error. As noted above, the trial court admitted the photo for two improper

purposes – to corroborate D.M.’s claim that Appellant showed her “gay

pornography” and to clarify the relationship between Phillips and Z.T. These

                                     - 13 -
J-S34021-23

dual purposes were emphasized in a cautionary instruction, which the jury is

presumed to have followed. See Commonwealth v. Gease, 696 A.2d 130,

135 (Pa. 1997).

      Assuming, as we must, that the jury heeded the cautionary instruction

and considered the Commonwealth’s photo exhibit for improper purposes, it

would be difficult to conclude that the jury only relied on relevant evidence

when entering its verdict. The instruction essentially advised the jury that the

photo was probative of material issues despite its utter lack of probative value.

      However, our harmless error analysis is complicated by the fact that it

was defense counsel who requested the instruction.         When it was given,

counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection, renew the earlier

objections, or otherwise convey dissatisfaction with the express limitations on

the photo’s relevance.         See N.T. Trial, 7/8/2021, at 55, 57.         This

communicated to the trial court that no further relief was being sought and

that the instruction resolved the earlier objections to the photo’s admission.

See   Commonwealth        v.    LaCava,   666   A.2d   221,   228   (Pa.   1995)

(“Significantly, trial counsel requested no further instructions and no mistrial,

thereby evidencing his apparent satisfaction with the limiting instruction

before the verdict was entered.”).

      As a result of his acceptance of the instruction, Appellant is precluded

from now claiming that the photo prejudiced him. That is, he cannot assert

on appeal that the photo was irrelevant and prejudicial when he had indicated

at trial that his challenge to its admission had been sufficiently addressed.

                                     - 14 -
J-S34021-23

Thus, we are constrained to hold that Appellant waived his claim that the

admission of the photo was prejudicial, and the judgment of sentence must

be upheld on that ground. See Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212,

1222 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“Where an objection is made, then a curative

instruction issued, appellant's only challenge is to the adequacy of the curative

instruction. Because [a]ppellant did not object to the instruction, any claim in

relation to its adequacy is waived.”) (Citations omitted).

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

 2/13/2024

                                     - 15 -