Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 25, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001996-2009, CP-15-CR-0001997-2009, CP-15-CR-0001998-2009
BEFORE: BENDER, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. [*]
This matter comes before us on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for "reconsideration of [Appellants'] weight of the evidence claims under the appropriate abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1057 (Pa. 2013). After careful review, we affirm the judgments of sentence imposed on Appellants by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County.
The Supreme Court summarized the facts and procedural history of the case as follows:
On February 7, 2009, at around 1:30 a.m., Jamel Clay, [Jason] Claybrook, and Rashid Lewis (collectively, "[Appellants]") visited R.B. at her college dormitory in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Upon their arrival at the dormitory, [Appellants] signed in and provided the security officer with photo identification. [Appellants] spent the next several hours socializing with R.B. and her friend, H.S., who lived in the same hall. Eventually, at approximately 3:30 a.m., the group discussed sleeping arrangements, and, according to [Appellants], H.S. invited them to stay in her room. At trial, H.S. testified that [Appellants] "ended up" in her room because it was the one nearest to where the group was gathered at the time the socializing concluded, but she did not dispute that she allowed them to stay. There also was testimony at trial that H.S. had engaged in approximately 18 telephone calls with her friend Richard earlier in the evening, during which H.S. informed him that she was planning to allow [Appellants] to stay in her room, and Richard warned her not to do so.
When Claybrook and Lewis first entered H.S.'s room, Lewis sat on her bed and Claybrook sat on H.S.'s roommate's bed. Clay either entered the room at the same time as Claybrook and Lewis, or shortly thereafter. At trial, H.S. testified that she asked Lewis to get off her bed, but he refused, and so she laid down next to him, back to back. H.S. stated that, after five to ten minutes, Lewis attempted to kiss her, and when she said no and attempted to get off the bed, he pulled her towards him, kissed her, and fondled her breasts. H.S. testified that, at some point, she scratched Lewis in an effort to resist him.
Lewis testified that, after he sat on H.S.'s bed, H.S. never asked him to get off the bed, and it was she who attempted to kiss him. At some point, after Clay entered the room and laid down in H.S.'s roommate's bed, Claybrook got into H.S.'s bed with H.S. and Lewis. Over the next hour, all three [Appellants] engaged in vaginal intercourse and oral sex with H.S., some of which involved all three of the men at the same time. H.S. also testified that each of the three men engaged in anal intercourse with her, although both Claybrook and Lewis denied having anal intercourse with H.S. Clay did not testify at trial. The hospital examination revealed ejaculate in H.S.'s rectum.
H.S. testified that [Appellants] initially restrained her, but conceded she was not held down the entire time. [Appellants] denied restraining H.S. at any time. Midway through the incident, Lewis and Clay left the room to obtain more condoms while Claybrook remained in the room with H.S. H.S. testified at trial that, during this time, Claybrook "was forcing me to have oral sex with him.... He had his hands on the side of my head and he forced his penis into my mouth." N.T. Trial, 10/26/09, at 162. When asked what kept her from leaving the room at that point, H.S. testified "I was just scared. I was really scared. I didn't know what was going to happen." Id. at 162–63. H.S. further testified that "they were three strangers that I didn't know, and they were forcing me to do these things with them." Id. At 163.
When Lewis and Clay returned, they each engaged in further sexual acts with H.S. H.S. testified that, except for the first time she told Lewis "no" when he tried to kiss her, she did not tell [Appellants] to stop, did not cry out for help, and did not attempt to leave the room. She explained in her trial testimony, when asked why she did not scream, that "[m]ost of the time I had somebody restrained over me, or I had somebod[y's] penis in my mouth." Id. at 165.
Thereafter, [Appellants] indicated they wanted to smoke, but H.S. asked them smoke outside so they would not set off the smoke alarm and get her in trouble. While [Appellants] were outside smoking, H.S. went down the hall to the bathroom and brushed her teeth. She then returned to her room and left the door open while she changed her sheets and picked up condoms from the floor. [Appellants] returned to the doorway of H.S.'s room1 and Lewis asked for a clean shirt to wear, as the shirt he was wearing had blood on it. H.S. gave him a clean shirt.
1 There was a dispute at trial as to whether [Appellants] actually entered H.S.'s room when they returned from smoking, or merely stood in the doorway to her room.
[Appellants] then left, at which point H.S. called her friend Richard and assured him that everything was fine. Several minutes later, however, she sent Richard a text message telling him that she had lied, that everything was not okay, and that she had been raped. H.S. then told her friend, R.B., that [Appellants] had raped her. At R.B.'s suggestion, H.S. contacted her Resident Assistant and Resident Director about the incident. The Resident Director reported the incident to campus police on H.S.'s behalf. H.S. then went to the hospital to be examined. Karen Dougherty, a registered nurse in the Crozier Emergency Department, examined H.S. Nurse Dougherty testified that she is a forensic nurse examiner and a sexual assault nurse examiner ("SANE") who had practiced nursing for 30 years and had conducted approximately 200 sexual assault exams. N.T. Trial, 10/27/09, at 484–86. Nurse Dougherty stated that, upon examining H.S., she observed a ...