Court Opinion

ID: 9390823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:08:40.130776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.225339
License: Public Domain

J-S36028-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    CURTIS FRANKLIN                            :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 1261 WDA 2021

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 27, 2021
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0000044-2021

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                             FILED: April 28, 2023

        Appellant, Curtis Franklin, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury

trial convictions for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”), criminal

solicitation, aggravated indecent assault of a child, two counts of criminal

attempt-rape, indecent assault-person less than 13, endangering the welfare

of children (“EWOC”), corruption of minors, and indecent exposure.1            We

affirm.

        The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

118 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(b); 902(a); 3125(b); 901(a); 3126(a)(7); 4304(a)(1);
6301(a)(1)(ii); and 3127(a), respectively.
J-S36028-22

       The convictions arose out of a series of incidents that took
       place over a period of approximately seven years, starting
       when J.C. [(“Victim”)] was 8 years old. Appellant is the
       paternal great uncle of [Victim]. [Victim] testified that
       during this seven year period, she and her family, which
       consisted of her mother, father and three brothers, moved
       three times. With each move, Appellant maintained a
       presence with the family, either through temporarily living
       with them or by helping to babysit and/or care for [Victim],
       and her siblings.    Through the collective testimony of
       [Victim]’s parents, Ms. Cannon and Mr. Walker, it was clear
       that Appellant was a constant presence in the family’s life.
       He benefited as a trusted member of the family as Ms.
       Cannon and Mr. Walker assisted him with housing, took him
       to medical appointments, helped with his care, and ran
       errands for him.

       The abuse began when Appellant lived with [Victim] and her
       family at a home located in McKees Rocks. During a time
       when [Victim]’s father was in the hospital, Appellant was
       watching her and her siblings. On a day when her mother
       was at the hospital visiting her father, [Victim] testified that
       Appellant touched her chest area and vagina beneath her
       clothing. Although [Victim] was unable to provide a specific
       date for this incident, her mother testified that the family
       lived at the McKees Rocks residence when [Victim] was
       between the ages of 6 and 12 years old and her father
       testified that he was hospitalized in 2014.

       The family then moved from McKees Rocks to a home on
       Clairhaven Street in Crafton. Although Appellant did not live
       with them at this home, he was a visitor and occasionally
       stayed overnight.      On one particular overnight stay,
       Appellant was allowed to sleep in [Victim’s] bedroom. It
       was during this night that [Victim] awoke to Appellant
       performing oral sex on her. She detailed that she was
       dressed in a shirt and pants, but that when she woke up
       both her pants and underwear were pulled down to her
       ankles. She detailed that Appellant stopped when he heard
       a noise and she fled into a bathroom and locked herself
       inside.

       When [Victim] was in the 6th grade her family moved to their
       current residence located on Lawson Avenue in Crafton.

                                    -2-
J-S36028-22

       Although Appellant did not live with them, he remained a
       frequent visitor and stayed overnight. The abuse continued
       as he created opportunities to be alone with [Victim] to
       perpetrate the abuse by asking [Victim]’s parents to run
       errands for him. She testified to numerous incidents.
       Sometimes he would touch her buttock or her chest when
       he came into a room, but the abuse continued to escalate.

       One day [Victim] was alone in a bedroom when Appellant
       pulled down her pants and underwear and attempted to
       vaginally penetrate her with his penis. [Victim] testified that
       she shielded her vagina with her hand and could feel his
       penis push up against her hand. Although Appellant was
       unable to perform penile penetration on this day, Appellant
       did penetrate [Victim]’s vagina with his fingers, despite her
       physical efforts to get away. Appellant attempted vaginal
       intercourse with [Victim] a second time while her parents
       were out of state and he was in charge of supervising the
       children. On this day, [Victim] was laying on the living room
       couch watching television when Appellant laid on top of her.
       Appellant pulled down [Victim]’s pants and underwear and
       attempted vaginal intercourse, but again she was able to
       block him with her hand. Appellant’s abuse of [Victim] also
       included repeated requests for her to perform oral sex on
       him.

       The trauma from these years of sexual abuse led to [Victim]
       self-mutilating, by cutting her skin with razor blades. Her
       mother discovered this in November of 2020 and [Victim]
       then disclosed the abuse to her mother, which led to a
       criminal investigation and subsequent charges in this case.

       An expert in the field of child sexual abuse and disclosure,
       called by the Commonwealth, provided testimony about
       how and why children may delay disclosing abuse and that
       cutting or other forms of self-harm are ways sexual abuse
       victims act out on the pain.

       Appellant testified at trial that he moved from Chicago to
       Pittsburgh to have access to medical treatment for
       underlying health issues. He confirmed that he either lived
       with [Victim]’s family or was a frequent visitor who also
       supervised the children at times, but denied that he ever
       sexually abused [Victim].

                                    -3-
J-S36028-22

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/17/22, at 4-6).

       During a charging conference, Appellant’s counsel objected to the court

instructing the jury with standard jury instruction 3.09—credibility of

defendant as witness.2 The court overruled Appellant’s objection and gave

the following instruction to the jury:

          Court: The defendant took the stand as a witness in this
          case. In considering the defendant’s testimony, you are to
          follow the general instructions I just gave you for judging
          the credibility of any witness. You should not disbelieve the
          defendant’s testimony merely because he is the defendant.
          In weighing his testimony, however, you may consider the
          fact that he has a vital interest in the outcome of this trial.
          You may take the defendant’s interest into account just as
          you would the interest of any other witness along with all of
          the other facts and circumstances bearing on credibility in
____________________________________________

2 Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.09 provides in
relevant part:

          3.09 CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT AS WITNESS: INTEREST,
          PRIOR CONVICTION, REPUTATION

          1. The defendant took the stand as a witness.               In
          considering the defendant's testimony, you are to follow the
          general instructions I gave you for judging the credibility of
          any witness.

          2. You should not disbelieve the defendant's testimony
          merely because [he] [she] is the defendant. In weighing
          [his] [her] testimony, however, you may consider the fact
          that [he] [she] has a vital interest in the outcome of this
          trial. You may take the defendant's interest into account,
          just as you would the interest of any other witness, along
          with all other facts and circumstances bearing on credibility
          in making up your minds what weight [his] [her] testimony
          deserves.

Pa. SSJI (Crim), §3.09 (1), (2).

                                           -4-
J-S36028-22

          making up your minds what weight his testimony deserves.

(N.T. Trial, 5/10/21, at 298).

      The jury found Appellant guilty of all charges on May 11, 2021. On July

27, 2021, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of 22 to 44 years of

incarceration followed by a period of five years of probation. Appellant filed a

timely post-sentence motion on August 6, 2021, which the court denied on

September 22, 2021. On October 22, 2021, Appellant filed a timely notice of

appeal.   The court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal on October 28, 2021, and

Appellant complied on December 2, 2021.

      Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

          Was Appellant denied his right to a fair trial and to due
          process of law when his jury was instructed that jurors could
          and should, “in weighing [Appellant’s] testimony, … consider
          the fact that he ha[d] a vital interest in the outcome of his
          trial[?]”

(Appellant’s Brief at 2).

      Appellant argues that the trial court erred by reading the “credibility of

defendant as witness” instruction to the jury because it improperly instructed

the jury to scrutinize Appellant’s testimony based on Appellant’s vital interest

in the outcome of the trial. Appellant claims this instruction was particularly

improper in this case because Appellant was accused of a crime that is reviled

and the outcome of the trial hinged entirely on credibility. Appellant avers

that the instruction was also unnecessary because the court had already

                                      -5-
J-S36028-22

instructed the jury on credibility of witnesses generally twice before reading

the “credibility of defendant as witness” instruction. Appellant concludes the

court’s reading of this instruction was unnecessary, improper, and unduly

prejudicial, and this Court should grant relief. We disagree.

      Our standard of review over a challenge to jury instructions is as follows:

         When a court instructs the jury, the objective is to explain
         to the jury how it should approach its task and the factors it
         should consider in reaching its verdict. In examining jury
         instructions, our standard of review is to determine whether
         the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an
         error of law controlling the outcome of the case….
         Moreover, in reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the
         entire charge is considered, not merely discrete portions
         thereof. The trial court is free to use its own expressions as
         long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately
         presented to the jury.

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 232 A.3d 747, 759 (Pa.Super. 2020) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

         A jury charge will be deemed erroneous only if the charge
         as a whole is inadequate, not clear or has a tendency to
         mislead or confuse, rather than clarify, a material issue. A
         charge is considered adequate unless the jury was palpably
         misled by what the trial judge said or there is an omission
         which is tantamount to fundamental error. Consequently,
         the trial court has wide discretion in fashioning jury
         instructions.

Commonwealth v. Baker, 963 A.2d 495, 507 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal

denied, 606 Pa. 644, 992 A.2d 885 (2010) (internal citation omitted).

Additionally, “[t]he Suggested Standard Jury Instructions themselves are not

binding and do not alter the discretion afforded trial courts in crafting jury

instructions; rather, as their title suggests, the instructions are guides only.”

                                      -6-
J-S36028-22

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 631 Pa. 138, 178, 108 A.3d 821, 845 (2014).

      Instantly, the court’s instruction to the jury was nearly identical to

standard jury instruction 3.09. There is nothing in the court’s phrasing of the

instruction that implied Appellant provided false testimony. The instruction

also did not suggest to the jury to evaluate Appellant’s credibility in a different

way than any other witness because of his interest in the outcome. To the

contrary, the court’s instruction cautioned the jury against assessing

Appellant’s credibility solely based on his status as the defendant. It further

instructed the jury to take Appellant’s interest in the outcome of the case into

account in weighing credibility in the same manner that the jury would do so

for any other witness. Consequently, the instruction served to reinforce to

the jury that it should evaluate Appellant’s testimony based on the same

factors of credibility as other witnesses.      As such, there is no merit to

Appellant’s claim that the court’s instruction erroneously suggested to the jury

to specially scrutinize Appellant’s testimony. Accordingly, we discern no error

in the court’s instruction, and Appellant’s sole issue on appeal fails.       See

Bradley, supra; Baker, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                       -7-
J-S36028-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2023

                          -8-