Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0931-2004 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CP-21-CR-931-2004 CHARGE: (1) SEXUAL ASSAULT (2) AGGRAVATED INDECENT ASSAULT (3) INDECENT ASSAULT (4) CORRUPTION OF MINORS AFFIANT: DET. RONALD EGOLF MATTHEW ROBERT OLIVER OTN: H925458-2 IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST-SENTENCE MOTION BEFORE HESS, 1. OPINION AND ORDER At a jury trial held in July of 2004, the defendant was found guilty of one count of sexual assault, 18 P.S. 3124.1; one count of aggravated indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3125; one count of indecent assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3126(a)(I); and one count of corruption of minors, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 6301. Following his sentence, the defendant filed a motion seeking a new trial, contending that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Weare satisfied that the facts of this case were correctly set forth in the brief filed by the Commonwealth as follows. The defendant was employed as a retail store manager. N.T. 30. In November 2003, the seventeen-year-old victim applied for a position at the store. N.T. 30. The defendant interviewed, hired, and supervised the victim. N.T. 30. The defendant had the authority to either ignore or punish the victim for violations of company policy. N.T. 55. Within weeks of meeting, the defendant took the victim to dinner and other places during non-working hours. N.T. 32. The defendant bought the victim small and large gifts. N.T. 33. The defendant invited the victim to his home after working hours and on occasion invited the victim to stay overnight. CP-21-CR-931-2004 N.T. 34-35. On these occasions, the victim slept on a downstairs couch while the defendant slept upstairs. N.T. 36. The defendant and victim communicated by telephone, email and instant messenger when not together. N.T. 38. During these conversations, the defendant asked the victim ifhe was bisexual. N.T. 38. The victim did not consider the questions threatening because he trusted the defendant as a friend. N.T. 39. Because his father recently died, the victim considered the defendant an older male advisor. N.T. 40. On the night of January 3, 2004, the defendant invited the victim to his home to watch movies. N.T. 40. The victim described the temperature in the home as being "overly hot." N.T. 40. After being told by the defendant to "get comfortable' the victim removed his pants and covered himself with a blanket. N.T. 40. The victim was wearing boxer shorts. N.T. 40. At some point during the movie, the defendant came over to the defendant, removed the blanket, and pulled the victim's boxer shorts down. N.T. 43. The victim used both hands to try to keep the defendant from removing his underwear. N.T. 43. The victim said "no." N.T. 60. The defendant performed oral sex on the victim for approximately fifteen to twenty seconds. N.T. 40. After the assault, the victim remained at the defendant's home out of fear. N.T. 46. Unlike previous nights, the defendant slept on a couch in the same room as the victim. N. T. 46. The two worked together the following day. N.T. 47. The victim was embarrassed and angry about the assault. N.T. 47. It was not until ten days later that he revealed the assault to his mother and the police. N.T. 50. The grant of a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Com. v. Brown, 460 A.2d 1155 2 CP-21-CR-931-2004 (Pa. Super. 1983). A motion for a new trial on grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict but contends, nevertheless, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Com. v. Taylor, 471 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1984). A new trial may only be awarded on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, making the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail. Id In order to find the defendant guilty of the various charges in this case, the jury would have to be satisfied that the defendant committed oral sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim, Michael Kotzman, and that the defendant acted knowingly or at the least recklessly with regard to Mr. Kotzman's nonconsent. We are not surprised, let alone shocked, that the jury accepted the testimony ofMr. Kotzman in this case. Given the facts as set out above, it is clear that the requisite elements were proven in this case and we see no reason to disturb the jury's verdict. The defendant argues that the partial nudity of the men, conversations about bisexuality, and the late hour of the event gave the defendant a reasonable basis to initiate sexual contact with the victim. While these aspects of the assault may be considered mitigating in terms of the sentence, they do not serve as a basis to upset the verdict. 1 It was, after all, the defendant who set the scene. It was Mr. Oliver who initiated the conversations concerning bisexuality. Most importantly, the victim physically resisted Mr. Oliver's advances. We are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. 1 The defendant was sentenced in the mitigated range. 3 CP-21-CR-931-2004 Finally, the defendant asserts that the verdict was a result of prejudice. Specifically, the defendant contends that the jury could not set aside the homosexual nature of the conduct nor the disparity in ages of the parties. The jury, however, was specifically instructed that, with the exception of the corruption of minors charge, age was not a factor. We also instructed the jury that they should decide the case as they would were the parties of opposing gender. N. T. 197. They were also instructed that they should not be influenced by favor or by prejudice. N. T. 201. We have no trouble in assuming that the jury followed our instructions and we will not upset the verdict based on mere speculation that there might have been prejudice. ORDER AND NOW, this day of February, 2005, the post-sentence motion of the defendant is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm 4 COMMONWEALTH vs. MATTHEW ROBERT OLIVER OTN: H925458-2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CP-21-CR-931-2004 CHARGE: (1) SEXUAL ASSAULT (2) AGGRAVATED INDECENT ASSAULT (3) INDECENT ASSAULT (4) CORRUPTION OF MINORS AFFIANT: DET. RONALD EGOLF IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST-SENTENCE MOTION AND NOW, this defendant is DENIED. Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm BEFORE HESS, 1. ORDER day of February, 2005, the post-sentence motion of the BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1.