J-S36039-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
WILLIAM D. RODGERS :
:
Appellant : No. 2377 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 16, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006200-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 19, 2018
Appellant, William D. Rodgers, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury
trial convictions for rape of an unconscious person, sexual assault, indecent
assault without consent, and indecent assault of an unconscious person.1 We
affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and
procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING APPELLANT’S POST-SENTENCE MOTION
ALLEGING THAT THE GUILTY VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3121(a)(3); 3124.1; 3126(a)(1), (4), respectively.
J-S36039-18
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL BASED ON
THE COMMONWEALTH’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE
CONTENT OF AN ALLEGED ORAL CONFESSION PRIOR TO
TRIAL.
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P.
Bradley, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 14, 2017, at 2-13) (finding: (1)
Victim testified that she woke up from sleeping on Appellant’s couch to
Appellant having sex with her; Victim testified she tried to push Appellant
away, but she could not move, felt “numb” and “weird,” and told Appellant to
“get off”; Victim said Appellant apologized afterwards and told her not to go
to police; police documented Victim’s bruises, which were consistent with her
version of events; defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined Victim and
impeached her credibility with inconsistencies between report she gave to
police, her answers to nurse’s questionnaire, Victim’s preliminary hearing
testimony, and her trial testimony; defense counsel also brought to light
discrepancies concerning timing of events, Victim’s condition throughout day,
and her ability to recall; defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined police
witnesses and strongly implied police investigation was “shoddy” and
“suspect”; case turned on credibility and jury, as is its prerogative and in
-2-
J-S36039-18
accord with its duty, decided Victim’s testimony was credible and rejected
Appellant’s version of events; jury decided Appellant engaged in intercourse
with Victim without her consent and while she was unconscious; jury’s verdict
is not so contrary to evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice; thus,
Appellant’s challenge to weight of evidence fails; (2) Detective Laughlin
testified at trial that before Appellant reduced his statement to police to
writing, he told detective that after Victim dozed off and closed her eyes,
Appellant got up, knelt between Victim’s legs with his penis exposed, and
attempted to have intercourse with Victim, but Appellant could not maintain
erection due to intoxication; in Appellant’s written statement to police,
Appellant maintained that he awoke to Victim fondling his penis and trying to
have sex with him; content of Appellant’s oral statement was not disclosed to
defense or prosecution prior to trial, and parties heard substance of oral
statement for first time during Detective Laughlin’s trial testimony;
nevertheless, defense counsel did not make contemporaneous objection to
this testimony; at close of prosecutor’s direct examination of Detective
Laughlin, parties appeared before court at sidebar to address different issue
and defense counsel merely indicated he was “disturbed” by Detective
Laughlin’s testimony concerning Appellant’s oral statement, which had not
been documented in police investigative report; defense counsel then cross-
examined Detective Laughlin about why he would not document Appellant’s
oral statement in detective’s report or communicate that statement to
-3-
J-S36039-18
prosecutor and defense prior to trial; defense counsel suggested detective’s
failure to document Appellant’s oral statement was at odds with police
protocol; significantly, defense counsel did not move for mistrial until after he
finished cross-examining detective; defense counsel should have lodged
objection when Detective Laughlin testified about Appellant’s oral statement;
if defense counsel had timely objected, then court could have issued
instruction directing jury to disregard testimony about Appellant’s oral
statement; court properly denied motion for mistrial, where Appellant failed
to lodge contemporaneous objection to offending testimony). Accordingly, we
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/19/18
-4-
Circulated 06/29/2018 09:56 AM