Court Opinion

ID: 9376720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 17:07:41.324486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.611330
License: Public Domain

J-S45014-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 RICHARD MICHAEL FRANK                   :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 1246 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 15, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-09-CR-0006429-2019

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

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                             FILED MARCH 3, 2023

     Appellant, Richard Michael Frank, appeals from the judgment of

sentence entered on March 15, 2022. We affirm.

     The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

       In [August 2019, the victim, K.F., was 13 years old and]
       living with her parents and sister in Upper Southampton
       Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. K.F. was having a
       difficult time with life. She got upset very easily. She wasn't
       showering or brushing her hair. She stopped going out with
       her friends. She didn't want to go anywhere with her mother,
       father or sister. When K.F. didn't want to go with her
       grandfather after making plans with him, her mother pressed
       her on what was wrong. K.F. replied, “Uncle Richie touches
       me in my privates.” She was on the floor in a fetal position,
       shaking and crying. K.F. said [Appellant] touched her in the
       vagina but didn't want to say anything else.

       K.F.'s mother [(hereinafter “K.F.’s Mother”)] called a
       co-worker and discussed the situation. The [co-worker] was
       mandated to report the incident and did so immediately. The
       police then contacted K.F. through her mother. An interview
       with a forensic interviewer at the Bucks County Children's
J-S45014-22

        Advocacy Center (“CAC”) was conducted on September 6,
        2019. The interview was conducted by Maria Nye, an
        experienced, licensed interviewer at the CAC. The interview
        was recorded, admitted into evidence as Exhibit C-2 and
        published to the jury.

        In the interview and at trial, K.F. described two incidents that
        occurred between her and [Appellant]. The first occurred in
        July[] 2017. K.F. went to her cousin's house in Philadelphia
        for a sleepover. [Appellant] asked K.F. if she wanted to go
        downstairs to the living room and watch her favorite
        television show. K.F. agreed and the two went downstairs
        and sat on a couch. [Appellant] began rubbing K.F.’s thigh
        with his fingers.     He moved his fingers around K.F.’s
        underwear and into her vagina. K.F. told [Appellant] she had
        to use the bathroom and left the couch. While in the
        bathroom, K.F. texted her mother several times requesting
        to come home. [K.F.’s Mother] replied she could not pick her
        up until after work the next day.

        K.F. first revealed that she texted her mother after the first
        assault at the Children's Advocacy Center interview.
        Detective [James] Shirmer, watching the interview,
        contacted [K.F.’s Mother] about retrieving the text messages.
        [K.F.'s Mother] was able to locate her phone containing the
        text messages. The messages were downloaded by the
        police. The text messages were introduced into evidence as
        trial exhibit C-12.

        The second incident described by K.F. was when [Appellant]
        and his daughter dropped off their dog at K.F.'s apartment
        before going on vacation in the later part of summer[] 2017.
        K.F. was [lying] on her back in the bottom bunk in her
        bedroom. [Appellant] sat next to her and began rubbing
        K.F.'s stomach with his fingers under her clothes. K.F. got
        off the bed and began following the dog around the
        apartment.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/15/22, at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).

                                     -2-
J-S45014-22

         Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of indecent assault,

endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors.1 On March 15,

2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve an aggregate term of one

year, less one day, to two years, less one day, for his convictions. Appellant

filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two claims to this Court:

           [1.] Did the trial court err in admitting the hearsay testimony
           of [K.F.’s Mother]?

           [2.] Did the trial court err in admitting photographs of K.F. at
           age [11]?

Appellant’s Brief at 8 (some capitalization omitted).

         Both of Appellant’s claims challenge the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

As we have held:

           The admissibility of evidence is a matter within the sound
           discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only where
           there is a clear abuse of discretion. Our standard of review
           of a challenge to an evidentiary ruling is therefore limited.
           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) (quotation

marks, citations, and corrections omitted).

         First, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it admitted “the

hearsay testimony of [K.F.’s Mother].” Appellant’s Brief at 12. This claim

fails.

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7), 4304(a)(1), and 6301(a)(1)(ii), respectively.

                                           -3-
J-S45014-22

     As noted above, during the trial, K.F. testified that Appellant sexually

assaulted her twice: first, in July 2017, when Appellant used his fingers to

rub the inside of K.F.’s vagina and, second, later in the summer of 2017, when

Appellant went underneath K.F.’s shirt and rubbed K.F.’s stomach. See N.T.

Trial, 11/30/21, at 24-45. K.F. testified that, in 2019, she told her mother

about the abuse. Her testimony on this issue was as follows:

        Q: [K.F.], was there a time in 2019 that you talked to your
        mom about what happened between you and [Appellant]?

        A: Yes.

        Q: And, specifically, what was happening between you and
        your mom?

        A: Me and my mom were arguing about something, because
        I didn’t want to go to a soccer game with my grandpa.

        Q: And why was that?

        A: Because I didn’t feel comfortable with men in the family.

        Q: And was that as a result of what [Appellant] had done?

        A: Yes.

        Q: When you told your mom that you didn’t want to go to
        this soccer event, what happened?

        A: I told her – I told her I didn’t want to go, because I didn’t
        feel comfortable with men in the family because of what
        [Appellant] did to me. And then she said – and then we – I
        started crying.

        Q: Okay. And did you tell your mom what happened between
        you and [Appellant]?

        A: Yes.

                                     -4-
J-S45014-22

         Q: Okay. And when you did tell you mom, were you crying?

         A: Yes.

         Q: And did you tell your mom what you just told us today?

         A: Yes.

         Q: What did your mom do?

         A: She said – she said that she’s sorry, and then we – she
         said that we’re going to tell someone about this.

         Q: And was there a time that you then went to meet with a
         woman at the Bucks County Child Advocacy Center?

         A: Yes.

                                     ...

         Q: And did you tell her what happened between you and
         [Appellant]?

         A: Yes.

N.T. Trial, 11/30/21, at 47-49.

      After K.F.’s testimony, K.F.’s Mother testified regarding the time, in

2019, when K.F. first told her of Appellant’s molestation.     K.F.’s Mother

testified:

         Q: Can you tell me, . . . was there a time that [K.F.] spoke
         to you about two incidents with [Appellant]?

         A: Yes.

         Q: Okay. When was that, approximately?

         A: It was August of 2019, because I will never forget that
         day.

                                    -5-
J-S45014-22

       Q: And can you tell the members of the jury what happened
       on that day?

       A: Me and [K.F.] had gotten into a little bit of an argument
       because [K.F.] had been declining with her emotional state.
       She was just getting very upset easily at things. She wasn’t
       showering, wasn’t brushing her hair. She stopped going out
       with her friends. She didn’t want to go out with even me, her
       father and her sister.

                                      ...

       Q: Can you just tell what precipitated [K.F.] disclosing
       something to you?

       A: She was supposed to go somewhere with her grandfather.
       She told her grandfather yes, and then afterwards she told
       me she didn’t want to go. I asked her, what is going on,
       because something is going on. She started crying and
       hyperventilating. And I kept saying to her, what is wrong.
       She said, you want to know why I have trust issues?

          [Appellant’s Counsel]: I’ll object as to hearsay.

          [Trial Court]: Overruled.

       Q: You can proceed, ma’am.

       A: She said, [Appellant] touches me. And she was on the
       floor crying, while my younger daughter watched this. And I
       said, what do you mean? And she said, [Appellant] touches
       me in my privates.

       Q: And what was her demeanor when she made these
       statements to you?

       A: She was shaking, on the floor in a fetal position, and she
       wouldn’t stop crying.

       Q: Did she tell you where he touched her?

          [Appellant’s Counsel]: Objection. Hearsay.

          [Trial Court]: That objection is overruled.

                                      -6-
J-S45014-22

        A: When I tried to get the information out of her, she said, in
        my vagina. And that’s about as much information as I could
        get out of her at that moment.

        Q: And what was her demeanor when she made that
        statement to you?

        A: She was still crying and shaking, and I was hugging her.

        Q: And what did you do with the information that she
        provided to you?

        A: I didn’t know what to do. I was trying to figure out how
        to help her and how to tell my husband at the same time
        without him doing something stupid. I called one of my
        co-workers asking what – you know, their advice.

                                      ...

        I – I told [K.F.] that we will – like, let’s go to bed and we’ll
        talk about it in the morning, after we have a clearer head,
        and then it was reported to [the National Organization for
        Victim Assistance (“NOVA”)].

        Q: And NOVA – was a [Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”)]
        interview then scheduled for [K.F.]?

        A: Yes.

N.T. Trial, 12/1/21, at 24-28.

      On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it overruled

his hearsay objections to the testimony of K.F.’s Mother. Further, Appellant

claims that he is entitled to the vacation of his convictions, as the

Commonwealth’s case against him “rest[ed] wholly on [K.F.’s] credibility” and

the admission of K.F.’s Mother’s testimony allowed the Commonwealth to

bolster K.F.’s credibility.   Appellant’s Brief at 20.     The Commonwealth

counters, arguing that K.F.’s Mother’s testimony was not offered for the truth

                                     -7-
J-S45014-22

of the matter asserted, but merely to explain her subsequent course of

conduct and to explain why she reported the assaults to her co-worker and,

later, to NOVA, and why K.F. was interviewed by CAC.                        Further, the

Commonwealth argues, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless,

as it was merely cumulative of K.F.’s own, unchallenged testimony.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 9-18.

      Hearsay is a statement “the declarant does not make while testifying at

the current trial or hearing,” that “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth

of the matter asserted in the statement.” Pa.R.E. 801(c)(1) and (2). “Hearsay

generally is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the

hearsay    rule    delineated     in   the    Pennsylvania     Rules   of     Evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 203 A.3d 1033, 1054 (Pa. Super. 2019)

(citations and quotation marks omitted).               However, if an out-of-court

statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the statement is

not hearsay and can be admitted for a non-truth purpose. Commonwealth

v. Fitzpatrick, 255 A.3d 452, 479 (Pa. 2021).

      Moreover, “evidence that would constitute inadmissible hearsay if

offered   for     one   purpose    may       be   admitted   for   another    purpose.”

Commonwealth v. Underwood, 500 A.2d 820, 822 (Pa. Super. 1985). For

example, “[a]n out of court statement offered not for its truth but to explain

the witness's course of conduct is not hearsay.” Commonwealth v. Rega,

933 A.2d 997, 1017 (Pa. 2007).

                                         -8-
J-S45014-22

      Here, the challenged testimony of K.F.’s Mother was not offered to prove

the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Appellant, in fact, sexually abused

K.F. Instead, the testimony was offered to explain the course of conduct that

K.F.’s Mother took in response to K.F.’s statements and to explain: why K.F.’s

Mother contacted her co-worker; why K.F.’s allegations against Appellant were

reported to NOVA; and, why K.F. was later interviewed by CAC. See, e.g.,

N.T. Trial, 12/1/21, at 27 (The Commonwealth asked K.F.’s Mother: “[a]nd

what did you do with the information that [K.F.] provided to you?,”

with K.F.’s Mother responding that she contacted her co-worker and, as a

result, the allegations were reported to NOVA and K.F. was interviewed by

CAC) (emphasis added).

      Further, even if the testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay, the

admission of the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Error is

harmless if:

        (1) the prejudice to the appellant was nonexistent or de
        minimis; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely
        cumulative of other untainted, substantially similar and
        properly admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and
        uncontradicted evidence was so overwhelming and the
        prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by
        comparison that the error could not have contributed to the
        verdict.

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 777 (Pa. Super. 2007).

      In this case, Appellant objected to the following statements from K.F.’s

Mother: 1) that K.F. said that she has “trust issues” because “[Appellant]

touches me” and 2) that K.F. said that Appellant touches her vagina. See

                                     -9-
J-S45014-22

N.T. Trial, 12/1/21, at 24-28. However, earlier in the trial, K.F. testified that,

when she told her mother about the abuse, she told her mother: 1) she “didn’t

feel comfortable with men in the family because of what [Appellant] did to”

her and 2) she told her mother “what [she] just told [the jury] today,” i.e.,

that Appellant sexually abused her twice, including once when he rubbed the

inside of her vagina. See N.T. Trial, 11/30/21, at 47-49 and 36-47.

      When comparing the challenged testimony from K.F.’s Mother with

K.F.’s earlier, unchallenged testimony, it is apparent that the statements are

substantively identical. Thus, even if K.F.’s Mother’s testimony constituted

hearsay, K.F.’s Mother’s testimony was merely cumulative of K.F.’s own

untainted and unchallenged testimony.         As such, even if K.F.’s Mother’s

testimony constituted hearsay, the admission of her testimony was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hardy, 918 A.2d at 777. Appellant’s first

claim on appeal thus fails.

      Next, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it admitted a

photograph that “depicted [K.F.] at the age of [11], the age at which the

assaults were said to have occurred.” Appellant’s Brief at 21. According to

Appellant, the photograph of K.F. was not relevant and was merely introduced

to “inflame the minds and passions of the jury.” Id. at 24.

      Relevance is the threshold question for admissibility of evidence.

Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 612 (Pa. 2008).                 “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

                                     - 10 -
J-S45014-22

or presumption regarding a material fact.” Commonwealth v. Drumheller,

808 A.2d 893, 904 (Pa. 2002). We previously declared:

        Trial judges generally enjoy broad discretion regarding the
        admission of potentially misleading or confusing evidence.
        Trial judges also have the authority to exclude relevant
        evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by
        the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion. See Pa.R.E. 403
        (“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
        probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair
        prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.”).
        Furthermore, the function of the trial court is to balance the
        alleged prejudicial effect of the evidence against its probative
        value, and it is not appropriate for an appellate court to usurp
        that function.

Commonwealth v. Parker, 882 A.2d 488, 492 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations

omitted).

     As the trial court explained, Appellant’s claim on appeal is meritless:

        K.F. was born [in November] 2005. At the time of the criminal
        conduct in this case, she was [11] years of age. At the time
        of her initial disclosure to her mother in August 2019, she
        was [13] years of age. At the time of her testimony at trial
        in late November 2021, she was [16] years of age. During
        the testimony of [K.F.'s Mother], the prosecutor [introduced]
        trial exhibit C-3 into evidence as [] K.F.'s fifth grade school
        picture. It was admitted without objection and published to
        the jury.

        Thereafter, the following exchange occurred:

            [Commonwealth:] Then I'd like you to take a look at what
            has been marked as C-4.

            [Appellant’s Counsel:] Your Honor, at this point I'm going
            to object. We already have one picture.

            [Trial Court:] Okay.

                                    - 11 -
J-S45014-22

            [Appellant’s Counsel:] I'm not sure the purpose of the
            second.

            [Commonwealth:] Your Honor, I believe it is important for
            the jury to see how [K.F.] looked at the time of this
            incident.   That photograph shows a picture of her
            approximate height, and then the jury can then determine
            her approximate weight when the incident occurred. I
            think that's important, because there has been a time
            period that passed due to factors, even beyond the
            Commonwealth's control, due to Covid, and I think it's
            important that they understand the height and weight of
            the victim at the time that this incident occurred.

            [Trial Court:] All right. I'll allow this, but this is the last
            picture.

            [Commonwealth:] Okay. Yes, I believe - - all right. We'll
            address that.

        [N.T. 12/1/21, at 12-13.]

        [The trial court] overruled [Appellant’s] objection to the
        admission of a second photograph of [K.F.]. The first
        photograph is a closeup of [K.F.’s] face and head. The second
        photograph shows [K.F.] standing and displaying a
        certificate. It shows her entire body and gives a sense of her
        height and weight.       [The trial court] believed it was
        appropriate for the jury to see how [K.F.] appeared at the
        time of the assault. The admissibility of evidence is in the
        trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent an
        abuse of that discretion. . . . [I]t was not an abuse of
        discretion to admit the second photograph of K.F.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/15/22, at 11-13 (footnotes omitted).

      We agree with the trial court’s determination that the second

photograph was relevant, as it depicted K.F. “at the time of the assault.” See

id. at 12. Further, we fail to see how the admission of a photograph depicting

K.F. “standing and displaying a certificate” prejudiced Appellant in any way.

                                      - 12 -
J-S45014-22

Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it

admitted the challenged photograph of K.F. Appellant’s claim to the contrary

fails.

         Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/3/2023

                                      - 13 -