J-S63015-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
STEVEN WILLIAMS :
:
Appellant : No. 181 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 11, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008041-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 30, 2019
Appellant, Steven Williams, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench
trial convictions for indecent assault of a person less than 13, endangering
welfare of children (“EWOC”), and corruption of minors.1 We affirm.
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them. We add that Appellant’s sentence also included an obligation to
register for life as a Tier III offender under the Sexual Offender Registration
and Notification Act (“SORNA”).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE [TRIAL] COURT ERR BY GRANTING THE [SECTION]
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3126(a)(7), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(i), respectively.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63015-19
404(B) PRIOR BAD ACTS MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH
TO ADMIT OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE?
WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT
[APPELLANT]?
(Appellant’s Brief at 3).
The standard of review for admission of evidence is as follows: “The
admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a
showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes
reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98, 80 A.3d
380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2842, 189 L.Ed.2d
824 (2014).
The term “discretion” imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion,
within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the
purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion
must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed
to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary
actions. 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.
Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874, 878-79 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal
denied, 624 Pa. 672, 85 A.3d 482 (2014). “To constitute reversible error, an
evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial
to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 81
(Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 619 Pa. 678, 62 A.3d 379 (2013).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
-2-
J-S63015-19
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Timika R.
Lane and the Honorable Lucretia Clemons, we conclude Appellant’s issues
merit no relief. The trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly
dispose of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 10,
2019, at 2-5 unpaginated) (finding: (1) factual circumstances of Appellant’s
alleged sexual assault of Victim and J.R. were nearly identical; at time of
abuse, both Victim and J.R. were under age of ten; both Victim and J.R.
described very similar instances of sexual assault; lapse in time from
Appellant’s purported sexual assault of J.R. to J.R.’s disclosure of assault and
Appellant’s assault of Victim did not outweigh similarity of alleged events of
both assaults; any prejudice Appellant suffered from admission of J.R.’s
alleged sexual abuse did not outweigh probative value; J.R.’s allegation
against Appellant was necessary to combat Appellant’s trial strategy of
impeaching Victim’s credibility by arguing J.R. convinced Victim to lie; bench
trial further minimized any prejudicial effect). (See also Trial Court Opinion,
filed April 17, 2019, at 4-8) (finding: (2) Appellant failed to specify in his Rule
1925(b) statement which elements of offenses were not satisfied by evidence;
therefore, Appellant’s sufficiency claim is waived; moreover, even if Appellant
had preserved his sufficiency claim, it would not merit relief; Victim testified
that when she was five years old, Appellant touched her vagina and buttocks
with his hand while on top of her; to extent Appellant asserts evidence was
insufficient because there was no physical evidence of abuse, testimonial
-3-
J-S63015-19
evidence alone can be sufficient; at trial, there was testimonial evidence of
each element of each crime from Victim; Victim’s testimony met requirements
of indecent assault of person less than 13; as to Appellant’s conviction for
EWOC, trial evidence established Victim lived with Appellant and that
Appellant and Victim’s grandmother, L.R., were sole two adults at house when
sexual assault occurred; evidence also showed Appellant supervised Victim
and her siblings on occasion when L.R. was not present; when Victim and L.R.
temporarily moved to hotel, Appellant was often present; therefore, evidence
established Appellant was person supervising welfare of Victim and satisfied
all elements of EWOC; regarding corruption of minors conviction, trial
evidence showed Appellant was over 18 and Victim was under 18, when
Appellant sexually abused Victim; therefore, Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of corruption of minors). The record
supports the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the
trial court opinions.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/30/19
-4-
)
)
J Circulated 12/17/2019 12:40 PM
)
!
,.
I
,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
CRIMINAL. TRIAL DIVISION
COMMONWEAL TH COURT QF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
v.
STEVEN WILLIAMS NO. CP-51-CR-0008041-2017
OPINION
· Lucretia Clemons, J.
Defendant Steven Williams appeals from his judgment of sentence entered on October 26,
/
2018, after the Honorable Timika Lane found Defendant guilty of: Indecent Assault of a Person
Less Than Thirteen (13) Years of Age, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3126; Endangering the Welfare of a Child,
18 Pa. C.S. § 4304; and Corruption of Minors, 18 Pa. C.S. § 6301. On appeal, Defendant
challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions. Judge Lane requested
that this Court, which heard and granted the Commonwealth's Pa. R.E. § 404(b) Prior Bad Acts
Motion on October 2, 2018, prepare an opinion addressing the grant of the Commonwealth's Pa.
R.E. § 404(b) motion.
.� ""
c::,
"°
c.; t.:· .. ,
c::: �
::.:
- ..
[
C)
-
CP,$1-CR-�t-201;
- -
'
C?rnm- v \\\llll\MS, STEVEN .
-
v
r»-
�
r
\
-
Opcmon
-, '
: '
r r
C)
co
l.'
1111111111111111111111111
. 8281280451 .
. -· - .. --
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
During the motions hearing, the Commonwealth presented the following evidence: When
I.A. was five years old, she visited her grandmother L .. ?i. .. _ _ and stayed overnight at
her home. N.T. Motion at 4. While I.A. was sleeping in bed with her grandmother and
Defendant, Defendant rolled on top of her, put his hands down her pajama pants, and touched
her buttocks and vagina. Id. I.A.'s mother, J.R., alleged that Defendant also sexually
assaulted her in a similar fashion when she was approximately eight years old. Id. at 5. When
J.R. was visiting her mother, Defendant touched the outside of her vagina with his hand
while she was wearing a bathing suit. Id. I,.., 'it· · · was in the room when this assault
happened, but she was under the influence of crack cocaine and did not react to what was
happening. Id. at pp. 5-6. The Commonwealth sought to admit this prior instance of sexual
assault as a "prior bad act" admissible under Pa. R.E. § 404(b).
II. DISCUSSION
Although "[elvidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's
character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character," Pa. R.E. § 404(bX 1 }, this Court did not admit this evidence as general proof of
Defendant's bad character or his propensity to commit crimes. Rather, this Court found that the
admission of Defendant's prior bad act was admissible as evidence of a common plan or scheme.
In ruling that the evidence of Defendant's prior bad act should be admitted in this trial as
evidence of a common plan, this Court applied a tripartite test: First, the Court "examine]d] the
details and surrounding circumstances of each criminal incident to assure that the evidence
reveals criminal conduct which is distinctive and so nearly identical as to become the signature
of the same perpetrator." Com. v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2015} (en bane)
(quoting Com. v. O.D.M.• Sr., 926 A.2d 984, 987 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Second, the Court
considered whether the evidence was "too remote in time to be probative." Id. at 359. Third, the
Court evaluated whether the "probative value of the evidence [was] outweighed by its potential
prejudicial impact upon the trier of fact." Id.
A. The details of each incident were so similar that they could be considered the
signature of Defendant.
First, the factual circumstances of the Defendant's alleged sexual assaults of J.R. and I.A.
were "distinctive and so nearly identical" that they constituted "the signature of the same
perpetrator." 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." Id. For prior conduct to be admissible to reflect the
defendant's "signature," it is not enough that they are crimes of the same general class. Com. v.
Semenza, 127 A.3d l, 7 (Pa. Super. 2015). Rather, other offenses are admissible as evidence of a
defendant's common plan "where the crimes are so related that proof of one tends to prove the
otherl]." Id (citing Com. v. Elliott, 549 Pa. 132, 145 (1997}, abrogated on other grounds by
Com. v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532 (2003}}.
The factual circumstances of Defendant's alleged assaults of J.R. and I.A. are strikingly
similar. J.R. and I.A. are the biological daughter and granddaughter of: I-� ·R .. '•,
respectively, who is the long-term partner of Defendant. N.T. Motion 10/2 at 7.. L- c 'IZ�
had "on-and-off' custody of both J.R. and I.A. when these alleged instances occurred. Id. Both
J.R. and I.A. were under the age of ten when Defendant allegedly sexually assaulted them. Id.
They are also the same race. Id. Additionally, both describe very similar instances of sexual
assault. J .R. alleges that as L.. �- i\. __ watched, Defendant touched the outside of her vagina
with his hand. Id. at 5. I.A. alleges that as l-., � .. watched, Defendant put his hands down
her pajama pants and rubbed her buttocks and the outside of her vagina. Id. at 8. These incidents
are remarkably similar and are certainly enough to make out a distinctive pattern as required
under Pa. R. E. § 404(b).
B. The prior bad act was not too remote in time to be prejudicial.
Defendant argues that because the incident concerning J.R. happened in 1995 and was
not disclosed until 2016, its admission was more prejudicial than probative. Def. SOE at 1. This
is unpersuasive. When considering whether a prior bad act is too remote in time to be admissible
for its probative value, "the importance of the time period is inversely proportional to the
similarity of the crimes in question." See Com. v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1186 (Pa. Super.
20 l 0) (holding evidence of defendant's prior rape of his biological daughter ten years earlier was
admissible at trial for indecent contact with his other biological daughter, where the fact patterns
I
in the two assaults were markedly similar). Although there is both a lapse in time between the
assault of J.R. and the assault of I.A., as well as a lapse between the assault of J.R. and her
disclosure, this did not outweigh the similarity of the previous allegation and the instant case.
Both J.R. and I.A. are biologically related to L� � ..- · · :. Defendant's long-term partner. N.T.
Motion 10/2 at 7. The assaults also happened when J.R._and I.A. were roughly the same age. Id.
Additionally, the details of both assaults are remarkably similar. Id. at pp. 5-8. Thus, the Court
found that the similarity of the crimes minimized the lapse in time between the previous assault
and the assault against I.A.
C. Admission of J.R.'s disclosure was not more prejudicial than probative.
Lastly, although J.R.' s testimony was undoubtedly prejudicial to Defendant, its probative
value outweighed this prejudicial impact. The Court was clear that admission of the prior
allegation against Defendant was necessary to combat Defendant's trial strategy of impeaching
I.A.'s credibility by arguing that J.R., I.A.'s mother, convinced her to lie. N.T. Motion 10/2 at
20. The Court was also convinced that because Defendant was being tried in a bench trial and not
a jury trial, the prejudicia] impact was further minimized.' Id. at 18. " [l]t's Judge Lane and it's
not a jury, [she] can separate the allegations in a different way than people who are nonlawyers
and not judges[ ...] I, frankly, have confidence in Judge Lane, having heard so many of these
type of cases, [is] able to separate what this is used for." Id. at pp. 18, 21-22. This certainly
mitigates the prejudicial impact of the prior allegation. The Court also attempted to mitigate the
prejudicial impact of the prior bad act evidence by only allowing the evidence to come in "for
the limited purposes of common scheme or plan" and not for Defendant's propensity to commit
any crime. Id. at 22. For these reasons, the admission of the prior assault of J.R. was not
improper under Pa. R. E. § 404(b) and thus should be upheld.
III. CONCLUSION
For the abovementioned reasons, the trial court's judgment and sentence should be affirmed.
---
BY THE COURT:
LUCRETIA CLEMONS, J.
Dated:
I It is well-settled that when the judge acts as the fact finder, the prejudicial impact of inadmissible evidence is
minimized. See QQID, v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52 (Pa. 2003), citing Com. v. Davis. 421 A.2d l 79 (Pa. 1980) ("Even if
prejudicial information was considered by the trial court, a judge, as fact finder, is presumed to disregard
inadmissible evidence and consider only competent evidence.")
Commonwealth v. Steven Williams
CP-51-CR-0008041-2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day caused to be served the foregoing this person(s), and in the
manner indicated below:
Attorney for the Commonwealth:
Larry Goode, Esquire
District Attorney's Office
Three South Perm Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) Regular mail ( ) CJC mailbox ( ) Email
Attorney for Defendant:
Douglas P. Earl, Esquire
1015 Chestnut Street, Suite 902
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Type of Service: ( ) Personal (X) Regular mail ( ) CJC mailbox ( ) Email
DATED: O(p { \0 l'W'A
Alejandra J. Whit ey- mith, Esquire
Law Clerk to Hon. ucretia Clemons
Circulated 12/17/2019 1240 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
lD f g AP!? I 7 PM 3: 5.BIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRIAL DIVISION - CRIMINAL SECTION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-51-CR-0008041-2017
v.
STEVEN WILLIAMS 181 EDA 2019
OPINION
LANE,J. April 17, 2019
OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Steven Williams ("Appellant") was convicted of indecent assault of a person less than
thirteen years of age, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(A)(7), endangering the welfare ofa child, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 4304(A)(l), and corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 A(l)(i), on October 26, 2018, after
a waiver trial. On January 11, 201 9, he was sentenced to a total of seven and a half years to fifteen
years of imprisonment for those crimes.
On January l 't, 2019, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On January 17, Appellant's
counsel was sent a 1925(b) order to file a statement .of matters complained. On January 24,
Appellant's counsel requested an extension of time. On January 25, the court granted Appellant's
counsel an extension of time until twenty-one days after the notes of testimony became available.
On February 1, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal (425 EDA 2019). On
February 20, Appellant also filed a pro se, handwritten statement of matters complained
Commonwealth v. Williams
corresponding to the case his counsel filed (181 EDA 2019).1 The last notes of testimony became
available on February 27. Appellant's extraneous appeal was withdrawn and discontinued on
,br"4l"�- ,