The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a trial court’s decision to limit how defense counsel could describe a minor complainant’s Snapchat communications in a child sexual abuse trial. In Commonwealth v. Slavskiy, decided November 3, 2026, the Court held that the defendant failed to follow the procedure for seeking admission of evidence covered by Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law. The Court also upheld the restriction on the merits and rejected a separate challenge to expert testimony about sexual abuse responses. It affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence of 30 to 60 years in prison.
The Facts of Commonwealth v. Slavskiy
The Commonwealth charged the defendant in Centre County with sexually abusing his daughter. Before trial, the defense sought to introduce testimony that she had sent nude photographs through Snapchat. Counsel did not propose showing the photographs to the jury. He wanted to explain the conduct that allegedly led the defendant to discipline her.
The defense argued that the complainant accused the defendant after he discovered the messages and took away her phone during a custody dispute. The complainant testified that he frequently threatened to take her phone away. She said that he never actually turned off her phone or internet service.
The trial court allowed counsel to pursue the claimed motive to fabricate. It required counsel to describe the Snapchat material as “inappropriate content” without further detail. The court also permitted Dr. Veronique Valliere to testify generally about sexual abuse and victim responses, subject to restrictions on discussing the complainant’s particular experience. The jury convicted the defendant of three counts of rape of a child and one count of statutory sexual assault.
The Rape Shield Ruling
Pennsylvania’s Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3104, generally restricts evidence about a complainant’s past sexual conduct in covered prosecutions. The Superior Court recognized exceptions, including evidence showing bias or a motive to fabricate. A defendant seeking to introduce evidence covered by the statute must follow the procedure for asking the court to admit it.
The Court held that the defendant failed to file the required written motion and specific offer of proof. Although counsel responded to the Commonwealth’s motion to exclude the communications and argued that they showed a motive to lie, the Court found that counsel never filed a motion seeking admission under the Rape Shield Law. The Court treated that omission as fatal to the claim. It also held that the trial court was not required to hold a hearing to decide whether to admit the evidence under an exception.
The Superior Court then addressed the merits as an alternative basis for affirming. The trial court permitted the defense to argue that the complainant retaliated after her father discovered material on her phone and disciplined her. The Superior Court concluded that counsel could present that theory using the general description the trial court allowed.
The Court reasoned that identifying the material as nude photographs would not, by itself, establish that the complainant was biased or that the accusations were false. It upheld the trial court’s decision to allow the defense to describe the alleged discipline and subsequent accusation without specifying the sexual content of the photographs. The ruling therefore depended in part on counsel’s ability to present the asserted motive through other testimony.
The Expert Testimony Ruling
The defendant also argued that Dr. Valliere improperly bolstered the complainant’s credibility. Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920, qualified experts may explain the general dynamics of sexual violence and types of victim responses and behaviors in covered criminal cases. The statute prohibits an expert from giving an opinion about any witness’s credibility.
The Court found that Dr. Valliere stayed within those limits. She had not interviewed anyone involved in the case or reviewed its individual facts. She did not offer an opinion about whether the defendant abused the complainant, how the complainant specifically reacted, or whether any witness testified truthfully. The Court held that similarities between the complainant’s behavior and the general behaviors Dr. Valliere described did not establish improper vouching.
The Court also relied on the trial judge’s instructions that the jurors alone decided credibility and that an expert’s qualifications did not make the expert’s opinions necessarily correct.
The Takeaway
Defense counsel should file a written rape-shield motion and a specific offer of proof before trial when seeking to admit evidence the statute may cover, even if counsel disputes that the statute applies. Counsel should explain how the particular evidence shows bias or a motive to fabricate and why a more general description would impair the defense. When challenging a sexual abuse expert, counsel should identify the specific testimony that exceeds Section 5920’s limits. The Court’s decision permits general educational testimony under that statute. Prosecutors still cannot use an expert to tell the jury that a particular complainant is credible.
Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case in Pennsylvania? We Can Help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder.
We have also 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.
