from the Judgment of Sentence September 15, 2016 In the Court
of Common Pleas of Bradford County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER,
Tyler Paul Shelton, appeals from the Judgment of Sentence of
an aggregate term of 75 to 360 months' incarceration
imposed following his conviction by a jury of 15 counts of
Corruption of Minors. Appellant challenges the court's
Order granting the Commonwealth's Motion in
Limine, which permitted the Commonwealth to present
to the jury portions of a video recording of the victim's
forensic interview. After review, we affirm.
Commonwealth charged Appellant with 100 counts each of Rape
of Child, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with Child,
Aggravated Indecent Assault of Child, Indecent Assault, and
Corruption of Minors,  40 counts of Corruption of Minors,
10 counts of Attempted Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse
trial court held a preliminary hearing on October 16, 2015.
At that hearing, the victim was unable to testify in
sufficient detail to the events giving rise to the charges.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the charges against
Commonwealth refiled the charges, and the court held a
preliminary hearing on November 10, 2015. At that time, the
court dismissed all of the charges save 40 counts each of
Rape of Child, Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with
Child, Indecent Assault, and Corruption of Minors.
26, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a Motion in Limine
in which it requested permission to "use all prior
recorded statements of the victim as part of the
testimony" pursuant to Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) (pertaining to
recorded recollections of a declarant witness), as a prior
consistent statement. Mot. in Limine, 5/26/16. The
trial court did not rule on the Motion prior to trial.
one-day jury trial commenced on June 24, 2016. The victim
began testifying in the late morning. At the conclusion of
the morning session of the trial, the court heard argument on
the Commonwealth's Motion in Limine. Following
argument and a lunch recess, the Commonwealth recalled the
victim to the witness stand for additional direct examination
and cross-examination, after which the court heard additional
argument on the Commonwealth's Motion. The Commonwealth
argued that the video recording represented a "prior
recollection" that "would be more accurate"
than her current recollection, that the victim testified that
she "recalled it better then, " and that she had
stated that if she did not currently remember the answer to a
question, she would respond to it by saying "no."
N.T., 6/24/16 (PM Session), at 24. Appellant's counsel
objected to admission of the video recording of the
victim's forensic interview, arguing that Rule 803.1(3)
did not contemplate this kind of admission, that the contents
of the recording are cumulative of the victim's in-court
testimony, and that the victim had not testified that she
lacked a present recollection of the event, and, in fact,
specifically testified to "numerous events."
Id. at 24-25. Ultimately, the court permitted the
jury to see an approximately fifteen minute portion of the
video recording of the victim's forensic interview.
Id. at 25-26.
same day, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on 15 counts
of Corruption of Minors, and acquitted Appellant of all other
charges. On September 15, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant
to the above term of incarceration.
filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion in which he challenged,
inter alia, the Commonwealth's use of the
victim's prior recorded statement at trial. On December
18, 2016, the trial court denied Appellant's Motion.
filed a timely appeal from his Judgment of Sentence on
January 16, 2017. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
raises one issue on appeal:
Did the trial court err in granting the Commonwealth's
Motion in Limine wherein the court allowed the use of a
forensic interview over timely objection from the defense
with regard to Pa.R.E[.] 803.1(3) as ...