PA Superior Court: Jurors Briefly Seeing Victim’s Service Dog Outside Courthouse Does Not Warrant New Trial
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Roberts, 2026 PA Super 65 (March 30, 2026), affirming the defendant's conviction and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial based on jurors briefly seeing the complainant’s service dog outside the courthouse. The court found that this incidental and fleeting exposure did not create a reasonable likelihood of prejudice under the Carter by Carter v. U.S. Steel Corp. framework.
The Facts of Commonwealth v. Roberts
The defendant was employed as a band director at Crestwood Area High School in Luzerne County when he was charged with inappropriately touching a 15-year-old student, K.F. The complainant had participated in the band program playing saxophone and clarinet. According to the complainant’s testimony, when she was in eighth grade, the defendant had a one-on-one class with her where she was the only student. She testified that during these sessions, the defendant began sitting close to her and repeatedly touching her thigh in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. The complainant routinely pulled away, but the defendant persisted.
When the complainant entered ninth grade, the defendant appointed her as the leader of the clarinet section in marching band. Prior to performances, band members would routinely assist each other in making sure their uniforms looked sharp. The defendant allegedly used these opportunities to personally adjust the complainant's uniform, with his hands lingering over her body as he adjusted her sash and cape.
The complainant’s father died in February of her ninth grade year. The defendant unexpectedly attended the wake, leaned in, hugged the complainant, and commented that he could hug her because they were not in school. The complainant testified that this exchange made her uncomfortable.
By her sophomore year, the defendant had promoted the complainant to drum major, the second-highest position in the band hierarchy. During that year, as band members were filing out of the band room to go to the practice field, the defendant allegedly held the complainant back from joining her classmates, telling her he had something to say. While standing behind her in an alcove outside the band room doors, he allegedly grabbed her buttocks and then placed his hands on her shoulders and told her in a quiet voice that if she told anyone, he would make her life hell. When the defendant was eventually placed on leave from his position for an unrelated reason, the complainant reported the conduct to police.
The defendant was charged with institutional sexual assault, corruption of minors, indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age, indecent assault by forcible compulsion, and harassment. A jury trial began on June 25, 2024, and the jury convicted the defendant of all charges on June 27, 2024.
The Service Dog Issue
Before trial, both parties and the trial court discussed the fact that the complainant had a service dog. Outside the presence of the jury, the parties agreed to a number of measures designed to minimize any potential prejudice from the jury learning about the service dog. Under this agreement, the service dog would not accompany the complainant to the witness stand while she testified. The dog would remain in the hallway with the complainant's mother at all times, so that there would be no inference that the dog belonged to the complainant. When the complainant, her mother, and the dog were in the courtroom, they would be seated prior to the jurors entering and would sit in an area least visible from the jury box. The defense raised concerns on the record that jurors might draw inferences from the presence of the service dog, and the trial court acknowledged those concerns, explaining that the agreed-upon measures were specifically designed to limit the jury’s exposure.
During trial, these prophylactic measures were followed, and there was no issue with the service dog inside the courtroom. However, on June 27, 2024, the Times Leader newspaper published an article reporting that despite efforts to keep the jury from seeing the service dog, several jurors exited the courthouse for a lunch break at the same time the complainant and her service dog were also leaving the building.
After the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts, defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial on July 9, 2024, arguing that the agreed-upon measures had been violated because jurors saw the complainant with her service dog outside the courthouse. The trial court held a hearing on August 21, 2024, at which a reporter testified and security video footage was reviewed. The reporter testified that at around noon on June 27, 2024, he was exiting the courthouse and the complainant was a few people in front of him, also exiting, while holding her service dog by the leash. He testified that two jurors were behind the complainant in the area of the courthouse exit at the time. After reviewing the evidence and testimony, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of six to 23 ½ months in jail followed by three years of probation. After the denial of his post-sentence motion, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court’s Analysis
The Superior Court began by reviewing the standard for granting a new trial based on extraneous influences on a jury. The court cited Commonwealth v. Wardlaw, 249 A.3d 937 (Pa. 2021), for the proposition that a new trial motion is designed to bring before the trial court defects in the prior proceedings or after-discovered evidence which require that the verdict be set aside. The court also noted that the standard of review for such motions is highly deferential to the trial court, which will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law, citing Commonwealth v. Morales, 326 A.2d 331 (Pa. 1974).
The court then turned to the framework for evaluating claims of extraneous influence on the jury. The court discussed Pratt v. St. Christopher's Hospital, 866 A.2d 313 (Pa. 2005), and the seminal case of Carter by Carter v. U.S. Steel Corp., 604 A.2d 1010 (Pa. 1992), which established that a new trial will be granted in cases of extraneous influence on a jury only where there is a reasonable likelihood of prejudice. In determining reasonable likelihood of prejudice, the trial court should consider: 1) whether the extraneous influence relates to a central issue in the case or merely a collateral issue; 2) whether the extraneous influence provided the jury with information they did not have before them at trial; and 3) whether the extraneous influence was emotional or inflammatory in nature.
Applying this framework, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion. The court found that the trial court had held an appropriate hearing, heard testimony from the reporter who witnessed the incident, and reviewed the security footage. The trial court concluded that the jurors’ view of the service dog in the complainant’s control was incidental and fleeting. Importantly, because the complainant’s mother was present during the incident and was holding the dog’s leash along with the complainant, the “designed ambiguity” regarding who owned the service dog was preserved. In other words, even if jurors saw the dog, it would not have been clear that the dog belonged specifically to the complainant rather than her mother. The Superior Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the brief encounter outside the courthouse did not create a reasonable likelihood of prejudice in a typical, objective juror.
The judgment of sentence was affirmed. This result is unfortunately not that surprising as both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court have actually blessed the use of service dogs while witnesses testify on the stand. There are rules that govern the use of such dogs, and the jurors are not supposed to be able to see the dog while the witness testifies, but if a witness may have a dog with them on the stand at times, then it was very unlikely that the Court was going to reverse a conviction where jurors simply may have seen the witness with a dog while exiting the courthouse.
Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.
Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense
If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, serving a state sentence in Pennsylvania, or exploring a direct appeal or PCRA petition, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and we have won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court — including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
