PA Superior Court: Sex with Unconscious Person Not Sufficient Evidence for Rape by Forcible Compulsion Conviction

Philadelphia Criminal Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Banniger, holding that evidence that a defendant had intercourse with an unconscious person, without more, is insufficient to prove the “forcible compulsion” element in a rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (“IDSI”) case where the prosecution has proceeded under the forcible compulsion subsection of either statute.

The Facts of Banniger

In Banniger, the complainant testified that when she was 15 years old, the adult defendant gave her marijuana, and she would smoke with the defendant while they were alone in the house. The defendant told her that he liked her and wanted to be with her. The victim told the defendant to stop. Shortly after that, the victim went to her room to lie down. She testified that on two occasions she was sexually assaulted by the defendant.

For the first incident, the complainant testified she awoke in her aunt’s room with her shorts pulled to the side, the defendant’s head between her legs, and with his tongue on and inside her vagina. She did not testify that she was frozen with fear, nor did she say how long the defendant continued or how the incident ended.

She testified that for the second incident, she woke up in her grandmother’s room. Her clothes were again pushed to the side and the defendant’s tongue was inside of her vagina. The defendant then pulled her pants off and inserted his penis into her vagina. The complainant, frozen in fear, just let it happen as she did not know what else to do. She then fought the defendant off because he was being forceful. The complainant ran into another room. She later told her older sister about the incident.

Following a non-jury trial, the judge found the defendant guilty of rape by forcible compulsion, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion, unlawful contact with a minor, statutory sexual assault, corruption of a minor, indecent assault of a person less than 13 years of age, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse of an unconscious person, and sexual assault. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate term of 14-34 years’ incarceration followed by three years’ reporting probation. The defendant filed a post-sentence motion. The court denied it, and the defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the rape and IDSI - forcible compulsion convictions, arguing that he did not use force because the complainant testified that she was asleep and woke up to the sexual assaults. Both statutes have different sections that apply to the sexual assault of an unconscious person, so the defendant argued that he should have been charged under those sections rather than with forcible compulsion.

The Superior Court agreed with the general idea that the rape of a person who is asleep does not amount to forcible compulsion but affirmed the convictions nonetheless. The court reasoned that in sexual cases, the object of the force is to compel a person to engage in sexual intercourse against that person’s will. They continued that “forcible compulsion” depends on a totality of circumstances, providing a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider including age of the victim and the defendant, mental and physical conditions of the complainant and the defendant, atmosphere and physical setting in which incident took place, and whether the complainant was under duress. Ultimately, the court recognized that each case turns on its own specific facts. 

Force, however, does not necessarily require resistance from the complainant. Instead, the question is whether the defendant’s physical, intellectual, moral, emotional, or psychological force compelled the complainant to submit to intercourse against their will.

The court noted that while consent will negate finding forcible compulsion, forcible compulsion requires more than a mere lack of consent. Where lack of consent exists, but no showing of either physical force, a threat of physical force, or psychological coercion can be established, forcible compulsion does not exist.

Although an unconscious victim may not consent, not every person who has intercourse with an unconscious victim does so by forcible compulsion. Noting that while the factor involving a victim’s physical condition includes evaluating a lack of consciousness, that is only one circumstance to be considered under the totality test for forcible compulsion.

Accordingly, the court held that the mere act of intercourse with an unconscious person does not prove forcible compulsion. It may well violate other statutes, but it does not violate the specific statutes with which the defendant was charged.

The court, however, affirmed the conviction because it found that the complainant was not actually asleep for the entirety of both sexual assaults. With respect to the second incident, she testified that she woke up and was then frozen with fear as the abuse progressed. At first, she let it happen and did not resist because she was frozen with fear and did not know how to respond. She eventually fought the defendant off. Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, including the extended familial relationship, the use of marijuana, her initial unconsciousness, and her fear of the defendant’s response if she resisted, the Commonwealth proved forcible compulsion. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

The Take away

Although things did not work out for this particular defendant, this is a pretty good opinion from the Superior Court in terms of analyzing the statute and reaching a logical conclusion. As the statute says, Rape or IDSI by forcible compulsion requires some level of actual force - psychological, physical, or otherwise, in order for the statute to apply. The elements are not met simply because penetration occurred without consent. Instead, that is essentially the definition of the somewhat less serious charge of sexual assault as a felony of the second degree. Therefore, sexual intercourse with someone who is totally unconscious or asleep is generally not going to be rape or IDSI by forcible compulsion. The problem for this defendant, however, is that the complainant testified that she was not totally asleep for the entirety of the incident and that she had other reasons for not resisting.

When fighting any case, it is important that the defense attorney be familiar with the elements of the statute. The attorney should never assume that the Commonwealth has charged the right statute or subsection of a statute. In many cases, the defense to criminal charges may be a legal one rather than a factual one, and a legal one that ends in an acquittal is just as good as a factual one that ends in an acquittal.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal conviction?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including 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.

PA Superior Court: Prison Sentence Okay For Adult Charged With Crimes Committed Decade Ago When Juvenile

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Torres, upholding the defendant’s convictions and lengthy prison sentence for rape of a child and related charges even though the defendant committed the crimes while he was a juvenile himself. In this case, the Superior Court approved of a long jail sentence for a defendant who committed serious sex crimes when he was a juvenile but was not arrested and charged until years later when he was an adult.

Had the defendant been prosecuted when the crimes happened, he would have been prosecuted in family court and likely received a year or two in a treatment facility. But because he was not prosecuted until a decade later, he was charged an adult, and he received a sentence of 19 - 40 years’ incarceration. This is obviously an absurd result, and the defendant will hopefully appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Facts of Torres

Between June 2008 and March 2011, Torres lived with his mother, four of his younger half-siblings, and his maternal grandmother in Lancaster Township. During that period, he sexually abused three of his half-siblings; his half-sister and two half-brothers. At the time of the offense, the three children were between the ages of two-and-a-half and six years old, and Torres was between the ages of 13 to 15. He was often left in charge of his younger half siblings because their mother was working sixteen hour days to support their family.

The half-sister reported that Torres would make her go to his bedroom and digitally penetrate her vagina, force her to perform oral sex on him, force her to swallow his ejaculate, and force her to have sex with him. In May 2009, she told her mother, and her mother called the police. The half-sister was interviewed by Lancaster County Children’s Alliance, but she did not tell the interviewer about the abuse. The other half-siblings were not interviewed at the time, and no charges were filed.

Almost nine years later, in March 2018, the half-sister told her parents again that Torres sexually abused her in the past. After this report, Torres’ two younger half-brothers disclosed the abuse they suffered at the hands of Torres. The details are not necessary for reviewing the legal issues, but the abuse was unquestionably horrific.

Although Torres committed these crimes as a juvenile, the Commonwealth filed the charges in 2018 when Torres was 23 years old. Accordingly, prosecutors charged Torres as an adult instead of as a juvenile.

Procedural History

After the prosecution filed charges, Torres filed a motion to dismiss. He claimed that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith by failing to investigate the half-sister’s report and failing to interview the other children in 2009, which led to the adult charges instead of family court charges. He argued that he could not be charged in adult criminal court with offenses he committed as a juvenile and that he should be prosecuted in Family Court under the Juvenile Act. The trial court denied Torres’s motion in November 2020.

A jury convicted Torres of all the sexual offenses after a three-day trial that began on August 23, 2021. The probation department conducted a pre-sentence investigation. Torres appeared for sentencing in 2022, and the trial court sentenced Torres to 19 to 40 years’ incarceration even though he had committed these crimes as a juvenile.

Torres filed a post-sentence motion arguing that the “adult-based sentence” violated his constitutional rights given that the crimes were committed when he was a juvenile and the sentence would have focused on treatment and rehabilitation if he had been charged closer in time to when they occurred. The trial court denied the post-sentence motion, and he appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, Torres first asserted that the trial court violated his due process rights when it denied his motion to dismiss, arguing the nine-year gap between the police report and the filing of charges prejudiced him because he lost the ability to have the charges handled in juvenile court. Next, Torres claimed the adult-based punishment of 19-40 years in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment because Torres was between the ages of 13 and 15 years old when the crimes were committed. Lastly, Torres claimed the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an aggregate period of 19-40 years’ incarceration.

The Superior Court denied all of Torres’s claims.

In denying Torres’s first claim, the Superior Court based its decision on precedent set in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent 2023 decision in Commonwealth v. Armolt. There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a 42-year-old-male who committed offenses when he was a juvenile should be tried in juvenile court because the Commonwealth’s bad faith in delaying the charges caused him to lose the benefits of juvenile court. The Supreme Court explained that no bad faith existed because, for the purposes of the Juvenile Act, a “child” is defined as someone under the age of 18 or someone under the age of 21 who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 18 years. The Supreme Court found that the Juvenile Act only extends juvenile jurisdiction to those who committed an offense while under the age of 18 if they are prosecuted before they turn 21.

The Superior Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning to Torres’s case because he was between 13 and 15 when the offense occurred but 23 when charged, so the Juvenile Act did not apply to him. Because the Juvenile Act did not apply, the Superior Court approved of the trial court’s denial of Torres’s motion to dismiss appropriate.

The Superior Court also rejected his challenge to the sentence. The Superior Court reasoned that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not require strict proportionality between the crime committed and the sentence imposed. Instead, the Eighth Amendment forbids extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. The Superior Court opined that most cases where cruel and unusual punishment has been found involved life sentences for juveniles tried as adults. The Court instead explained that Torres was sentenced to 19-40 years in prison and not a life sentence, making those cases inapplicable. Further, the Court decided that because the Juvenile Act did not apply, Torres was not entitled to any special sentencing benefits.

Finally, the Superior Court decided the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a long sentence. The Superior Court noted a sentencing judge has broad discretion because that judge is in the best position to “view the defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance, or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime”. The Superior Court further explained that the sentencing court considers the crime’s effect on the victims and community as a whole along with the defendant’s prior record, age, personal characteristics, and potential for rehabilitation. Finally, the Court explained that when a trial court has the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, its discretion should not usually be disturbed. Here, the sentencing judge had a pre-sentence investigation and conducted a full hearing. At Torres’s sentencing hearing, the trial court provided a full history of Torres’s life, paying close attention to his upbringing including, the sexual, physical, and emotional abuses Torres himself endured as a child. The Superior Court confirmed that the trial court considered all the proper sentencing factors and found the sentence appropriate, ultimately upholding the sentence.

The decision in Torres clearly illustrates just how much leeway and discretion the prosecution and trial courts have when it comes to criminal cases. Had the Commonwealth prosecuted Torres as a juvenile when the allegations first came to light, while he was under the age of 18, he certainly would have avoided an aggregate 19–40-year sentence and would likely not be under any court supervision at this time. The case also shows the enormous difference between being charged as a juvenile and being charged ten years later as an adult. When charged as a juvenile, the consequences are likely to focus on treatment. But when charged for something old as an adult, even if the defendant has stayed out of trouble for a decade or more, the defendant could face decades in prison. The system is clearly in need of major reform.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.

Not Guilty: Attorney Goldstein Obtains Full Acquittal in Rape Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently obtained a full acquittal in a rape case. In Commonwealth v. P.S., the defendant was charged in Philadelphia with rape of a child and related charges for allegedly assaulting his biological daughter. According to the complainant, the assaults began when she was between the ages of 3 - 5 and continued until she was about 13 or 14. She did not report them until she was around 16, but prosecutors arrested P.S. and charged him with a number of sex crimes. 

P.S. retained Attorney Goldstein to defend against the allegations. Attorney Goldstein investigated the case, obtained discovery from the District Attorney’s Office, and learned that the complainant’s mother, from whom the client had separated shortly before the allegations were first made in Family Court, had been claiming that P.S. assaulted the complainant for years. Attorney Goldstein investigated further and obtained family court transcripts which showed that the complainant had told judges that the assaults did not actually happen and that there was a lengthy history of litigation over child custody and child support. The family court records showed that the complainant’s mother had made these unfounded allegations supposedly on behalf of her daughter anytime she wanted to deny P.S. from having custody, but she had continued to let him see her and had never gone to the police. This behavior obviously did not make sense if the mother believed that child abuse was actually occurring. 

P.S. proceeded to trial before a judge in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The complainant testified that P.S. assaulted her, but her testimony differed wildly from what she had told social workers in a videotaped interview which took place at the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance. Through cross-examination, Attorney Goldstein was able to show that P.S.’s story had changed repeatedly, she had previously told a judge that the assaults did not actually happen, all of her medical exams had been totally normal, and her mom had been telling her that her father had molested her since she was about three years old. Finally, when the complainant’s mother testified, it quickly became clear that she had fabricated the allegations by insisting that these horrible things happened only after she began suing P.S. for child custody and child support. 

The trial judge promptly acquitted P.S. at the end of the one day waiver trial. The judge found that the allegations were fabricated and that the complainant’s mother had essentially traumatized her daughter and put her up to making the allegations. Instead of facing decades in prison and a lifetime of Megan’s Law registration, P.S. has now been found not guilty and will be eligible to have the charges expunged. 

Allegations of child abuse and child sexual assault are among the most serious possible charges and the most difficult to defend. Judges and juries often have a difficult time believing that children could lie about something so horrible. Fortunately, our attorneys are experienced in investigating these cases and cross-examining the complainants and witnesses in order to effectively fight back against false charges. We have won many of these cases at preliminary hearings, at trial, on appeal, and in PCRA litigation. 

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.

PA Superior Court: Suppression Required if Police Don’t Knock and Announce

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Goodis, holding that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress because the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the police failed to “knock and announce” prior to entering the defendant’s house to execute a search warrant. The consequences to the government of a failure to knock and announce are very different in Pennsylvania and federal courts. In federal court, a knock and announce violation does not lead to suppression. But in Pennsylvania state court, a violation of the knock and announce rule requires that the trial court suppress the evidence.

The Facts of Goodis

In Goodis, the defendant had been convicted of various counts relating to the possession and distribution of child pornography in state court. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police failed to knock and announce before entering his house to execute a search warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the police acted too quickly but were justified in relying on concerns of officer safety. The defendant appealed.

What is the knock and announce rule?

The knock and announce rule requires police to knock on the door, wait a little bit, and announce their identity, purpose, and authority before entering. Generally, this is accomplished by the police knocking, yelling something along the lines of “police, open up, search warrant,” and then giving the occupant of the building a little bit of time to respond. If the police obtain a no-knock warrant or hear something that suggests the person inside is attempting to flee, grab a weapon, or destroy evidence, then police may dispense with the knock and announce requirement. They also generally do not have to wait very long. But they do have to knock, announce, and give the occupant of the building some time to open the door before they break in.

It is notable that the appellate court may have had some doubts about the defendant’s actual guilt. Even after the trial court denied the motion to suppress, the defense was able to show at trial that police had damaged the hard drive which allegedly contained the child pornography, and he called expert witnesses who testified that the contraband could have been placed there by someone accessing his wireless network which was unsecured at the time. The police also did not find a large quantity of contraband images and videos. In many cases, they find thousands of images and videos. In this case, they only found a few.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial judge’s ruling on the motion to suppress. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 207 and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution require that police, before entering a dwelling to execute a search warrant, announce their identity, purpose and authority and give the occupant a reasonable period of time after such announcement to let them in, unless exigent circumstances require immediate forcible entry. The purposes of this requirement, known as the “knock and announce rule,” are to prevent resistance by an occupant protecting his dwelling, to prevent violence and physical injury to the police and occupants, to protect an occupant’s privacy expectation against the unauthorized entry, and to prevent property damage resulting from forced entry. The knock and announce rule is not limited to entry that involves breaking down a door or damage to the dwelling; it applies to any entry into a dwelling without the occupant’s permission, including entry through an unlocked door. Moreover, even where police knock and clearly announce their identity as police, failure to announce their purpose before entering the premises violates Rule 207 and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and suppression is required unless exigent circumstances for the failure to announce are shown.

The Commonwealth must prove compliance with the rule or that one of four exceptions applied. The exceptions are: 1) that the occupants fail to respond after repeated knocking and announcing; 2) that the police are virtually certain that the occupants already know their purpose; 3) that the police have reason to believe that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety; or 4) that the police have reason to believe that evidence is about to be destroyed.

Here, the trial court had found that the police announced their presence but did not announce their purpose or wait for a long enough time for the defendant to let them in the house. The court ruled, however, that the police acted with exigent circumstances because they believed that the defendant could have posed a threat to officer safety. On appeal, the defendant argued that this officer safety exception should not have applied.

The Superior Court reviewed the transcripts from the hearing as well as the body camera videos which were introduced by the parties. The videos showed that the police knocked, the defendant walked to the window and put up a finger, signaling that they should wait a second, and then he went out of view to get dressed. Before he got dressed, the police knocked the door down and then held him at gunpoint. The Commonwealth had argued that he could have been trying to destroy evidence or grab a weapon when he went out of view, but the Superior Court rejected this argument. The Court concluded that there was no reason to believe the defendant posed a threat to officer safety where the police were investigating a serious but non-violent crime, the defendant came to the door, signaled to the police for them to give him a second, and then the defendant appeared to be getting dressed. This is particularly true given that the police had not told him to come back or open the door immediately. Indeed, they did not announce their purpose at all. The defendant even appeared to say “hold on a second,” and one of the officers responded, “OK, all right.” As the officer agreed, the defendant had no reason not to believe it was okay for him to get dressed before opening the door. Thus, the officers did not have any objective reason to believe that there was an issue of officer safety that would eliminate the requirement of announcing their purpose.

The Superior Court therefore ordered that the evidence should be suppressed. The defendant will receive a new trial, and the Commonwealth will likely be unable to proceed.

The case shows the importance of carefully reviewing body cam footage before trial and understanding the differences between state and federal court. Without the body cam footage, the defendant would have had a very hard time convincing a panel of appellate judges that the police did not have legitimate officer safety concerns. He would have been left only with their testimony and limited ways in which to contradict it. Further, in federal court, the remedy for a knock and announce violation is not suppression. Instead, a defendant can sue the police, which does not do them much good while they are in prison serving a sentence for distribution of child pornography.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC - Criminal Defense Attorneys in Philadelphia

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 in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. 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.