Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1110-2005 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CP-21-CR-III0-2005 WALTER D. RHINEHART IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925 Walter D. Rhinehart appeals from his conviction on seven counts of intimidation of witnesses, three counts of corruption of minors, and seven counts of selling or furnishing liquor or malt or brewed beverages to minors. Prior to jury selection, the defendant objected to testimony regarding sexual contact between him and the victims. The Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of the sexual activity to provide a complete picture of the case and to establish motive to commit the charged crimes. The defendant, in turn, observed that the sexual activity was with people over eighteen years of age and was consensual. He argued that the sexual activity was, thus, irrelevant, uncharged and could not, in any event, constitute a crime. He argued that such testimony "would have no bearing on this trial except to prejudice the jury against the defendant through making him a bad person." After hearing argument, we overruled the defendant's objection, concluding that the probative value of the testimony outweighed its prejudice to the defendant. We also offered to give a cautionary instruction to the jury to address any potential prejudice to the defendant. He complains, on appeal, that we erred in permitting the prosecution to delve into his sexual relationship with the victims. That testimony can be summarized as follows. Tricia Cassel, who was eighteen years old during the events in question, met the forty- six- year-old defendant when he came to her car, sat down inside and introduced himself. N.T. 12. The defendant invited Ms. Cassel, as well as her young friends Trina and Tasha to come to CP-21-CR-III0-2005 his home to smoke marijuana and drink beer. This they did. Eventually, Mr. Rhinehart's relationship with Tricia developed into a sexual one. While Tricia did not resist Mr. Rhinehart's advances, she testified that she was upset by the situation. As their sexual relationship continued, the defendant began to threaten Tricia with physical harm should she tell anyone about her activities with the defendant. She noted: I trusted him because he made me feel like he was a father figure. And then after all the sexual stuff started happening, I started fearing him. He started getting more violent and saying how he would kill my family, he will kill me. And it was a whole different scenario then. He just wasn't who he was before. All he cared about were [sic] sex, and basically me doing whatever he wanted, as he would call, I was his wench. N.T. 45. Jeanette Briganti was another young lady who visited at the home of the defendant. Although underage, she accepted the defendant's offer to drink beer. She testified that the defendant implied, on several occasions, that he wanted to have sex with her. In the course of some sort of "reading" which involved the light touching of Jeanette' s body, he touched her vagina. The defendant also made sexual overtures to a Trina Tomlinson. Both Trina and Jeanette were twenty years old. While all of this was going on, the defendant's home was visited by Dustin Cassel, Tricia Cassel's brother, who was sixteen years of age. The defendant offered him marijuana and alcohol on more than one occasion. Mr. Rhinehart also threatened Dustin that he would harm him unless he kept his mouth shut. N. T. 81. 2 CP-21-CR-III0-2005 Other witnesses, whose testimony we will not detail here, also testified. These young persons were between fifteen and eighteen years of age. They all either were provided marijuana by the defendant or brought marijuana to the defendant's apartment and smoked it in a pipe which the defendant provided. Alcoholic beverages were also made available. In the meantime, Mr. Rhinehart let it be known that in the event the activity at his apartment was reported to the police, after he got out of jail, he would "hunt them down." N. T. 92. The furnishing of marijuana, the furnishing of alcohol, and the threats which accompanied these unlawful acts gave rise to the counts of corruption of minors, furnishing liquor or malt beverages and intimidation of witnesses. In Com. v. Richter, 711 A.2d 464,466 (Pa. 1998), the court observed that "[e]vidence of prior acts are generally not admissible if offered merely to show bad character or a propensity for committing bad acts." Citing Com. v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621, 635 (Pa. 1995). The court noted, further, "[ e ]xceptions to this general proscription exist in special circumstances where the evidence is relevant for some other legitimate purpose and is not merely designed generally to prejudice the defendant by showing him to be a person of bad character." Id Other legitimate purposes for introducing evidence of prior crimes or bad acts are to prove motive or intent. Com. v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa.1998); see also Pa.R.Evid. 404(b )(2). Evidence of prior crimes, wrongs or acts is only admissible if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for prejudice. Pa.R.Evid. 404(b )(3). In Lark, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated "evidence of other crimes may be relevant and admissible where such evidence was part of the chain or sequence of events which became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts." 3 CP-21-CR-III0-2005 Citing Com. v. Murphy, 499 A.2d 1080, 1082 (Pa.Super. 1985). The court also stated that this exception "also known as the 'complete story' rationale, i.e., evidence of other criminal acts may be relevant and admissible where such evidence was part of the chain or sequence of events which became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts." Id at 497. "This special circumstance, sometimes referred to as the res gestae exception to the general proscription against evidence of other crimes, is also known as the' complete story' rationale, i.e., evidence of other criminal acts is admissible 'to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place. ", Id In this case, evidence of sexual activity and other acts involving the victims was not offered to show bad character. Rather, the activity was interwoven with the furnishing of alcohol and marijuana to minors and with subsequent threats and intimidation. The evidence came in for the legitimate purpose of completing the story. It is also clear that one of the defendant's aims in befriending these young persons was to facilitate sexual activity. Accordingly, the testimony spoke to motive. In the end, we are satisfied that the probative value of the testimony outweighed any prejudice to the defendant. In Com. v. Richter, the court stated that "evidence of prior criminal acts has the potential for misunderstanding on the part of the jury, [so] such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence has been admitted." 711 A.2d at 467. The undersigned gave the jury a cautionary instruction as follows: But first let me observe that you have heard some testimony concerning sexual activity. I want to underscore for you that the defendant is not charged with any sexual offenses. The 4 CP-21-CR-III0-2005 Commonwealth argues that the sexual activity may go to the question of the defendant's motive. But I want to underscore that the sexual activity itself, that is the sexual activity that has been described, is not illegal. And that aspect of the case should not cause you to convict the defendant. Rather, you must be satisfied that the elements of the offenses that I am about to describe to you have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. N.T. 165-66. "The law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of the court." Com. v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893, 906 (Pa. 2002) (quoting Com. v. 0 'Hannon, 732 A.2d 1193, 1996 (Pa. 1999)("[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court' s instructions")). March 23rd, 2006 Kevin A. Hess, J. John C. Dailey, Esquire Assistant District Attorney H. Anthony Adams, Esquire Assistant Public Defender Probation :rlm 5