HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2618 criminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
ANTONIO MCADOO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
00-2618 CRIMINAL
IN RE: MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
BEFORE HESS, J,,
ORDER
AND NO W, this 2 '~.
day of April, 2001, the motion of the defendant for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a motion for new trial is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT,
Mary-Jo Mullen, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
A. Hess, J.
Robert Mulderig, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
COMMONWEALTH
VS.
ANTONIO MCADOO
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
00-2618 CRIMINAL
IN RE' MOTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
BEFORE HESS, J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this case, the defendant is charged with a count of simple assault as a result of his
striking a child with a belt. The incident is alleged to have occurred on July 1, 2000. On or
about July 7, 2000, the child, Tristan Clark, was discovered to have braising about his face,
abdomen and chest. He was taken to the emergency room of the Carlisle Hospital.
The defendant has admitted to the spanking on July 1, 2000, but argues justification
under the Crimes Code section permitting corporal punishment of children for disciplinary
reasons. See 18 P.S. 509(1). The defendant has denied any involvement in the July 7, 2000
injuries. In fact, a motion to quash charges arising out of this latter incident was granted on
February 27, 2001, by the Honorable Edward E. Guido.
As noted in the defendant' s brief, "[p]rior to a jury trial on March 6, 2001, Defense made
a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of the July 7, 2000 incident. The Prosecutor stated that
this evidence was only coming in as background to explain how the injuries that the Defendant
was accused of were discovered." Throughout the trial, however, there were regular references
to the July 7th injuries. Photographs of these injuries were displayed to the jury at length. The
prosecutor, in addition, adduced evidence of unspecific discussions between the defendant and
the child's mother concerning abuse on the part of the defendant. The rather obvious impression
00-2618 CRIMINAL
left by the prosecution was that, while the defendant was clearly the prime suspect in the injuries
of July 7th, the Commonwealth simply could not prove his involvement beyond a reasonable ~
doubt.
We gave cautionary instructions emphasizing to the jury that their sole role was to
determine whether or not the spanking of July 1, 2000, constituted a simple assault. We now
believe that any such cautionary instruction would have fallen on deaf ears. We are satisfied that
we erred in failing to sustain the defendant's motion in limine with regard to evidence of the July
7th injuries and that our failure to do so may very well have had an effect on the outcome of the
trial,l It is axiomatic that the trial court has broad discretion to order a new trial to serve the ends
of justice. See Com. v. Rodriguez, 451 Pa. Super. 474, 679 A.2d 1320 (1996). Nonetheless, it is
not a step that we take lightly. That a new trial ought to be granted in this case, however, is
clear.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of April, 2001, the motion of the defendant for
extraordinary relief in the nature of a motion for new trial is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT,
Mary-Jo Mullen, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
Hess, J.
I The defendant was found guilty on a count of simple assault and was directed to appear for sentence on April 10,
2001.
00-2618 CRIMINAL
Robert Mulderig, Esquire
For the Defendant