from the Judgment of Sentence September 23, 2016 In the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS [*] , P.J.E.
Wade Giles, Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence,
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
following his convictions of rape of a child,  aggravated
indecent assault,  unlawful contact with minor-sexual
offenses,  indecent assault-person less than 13 years
of age,  corruption of minors-defendant age 18 or
above,  endangering welfare of children,
indecent exposure. After our review, we affirm.
charges in this case stemmed from incidents occurring in the
spring and summer of 2013, when the female victim, Q.H., was
ten years old. At trial, Q.H. testified that on the first
occasion, Giles touched her vagina while they were in her
mother's bedroom. On the second occasion, again in her
mother's bedroom, Giles made Q.H. touch his penis. On the
third occasion, Q.H. testified that Giles told her to go to
the living room and take off her clothes; he then had sexual
intercourse with her and performed oral sex on her. Q.H.
disclosed these three incidents at the forensic interview and
at the preliminary hearing, but left out the oral sex that
occurred during the third incident, to which she testified at
trial, the jury convicted Giles of the aforementioned
offenses and the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of
imprisonment of 215 to 430 months, to be served consecutively
to an existing federal sentence.Giles filed post-sentence
motions, which were denied, and this timely appeal followed.
Both Giles and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925. Giles raises two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or
abused its discretion by permitting the Commonwealth to admit
Q.H.'s forensic interview video as a prior consistent
2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or
abused its discretion by permitting Q.H.'s
grandmother's testimony about the contents of an
interview that she observed between Q.H. and a police officer
as a prior consistent statement?
Appellant's Brief, at 7.
trial, which was held June 29, 2016 to July 1, 2016, over
defense counsel's hearsay objection, the court admitted
into evidence the video of Q.H.'s forensic interview. The
forensic interview took place the previous year, on March 11,
2015. The trial court ruled the interview video was
admissible as a prior consistent statement. See
Pa.R.E. 613(c). See also Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868
A.2d 498, 512 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prior consistent statements
of child victim of sexual assault, offered to corroborate
in-court testimony, are not hearsay).
reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of
evidence, our standard of review is one of deference. It is
firmly established that "[q]uestions concerning the
admissibility of evidence lie within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and [a reviewing court] will not reverse the
court's decision on such a question absent a clear abuse
of discretion." Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738
A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. 1999). An abuse of discretion requires:
not merely an error of judgment, but where the judgment is
manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or
where the record shows that the action is a result of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.
Chmiel, 738 A.2d at 510, citing Commonwealth v.
Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 613(c) provides:
(c) Witness's Prior Consistent Statement to
Evidence of a witness's prior consistent statement is
admissible to rehabilitate the witness's credibility if
the opposing party is given an opportunity to cross-examine
the witness about the statement and the statement is offered
to rebut an express or implied charge of:
(1) fabrication, bias, improper influence or motive, or
faulty memory and the statement was made before that which
has been charged existed or arose; or
(2) having made a prior inconsistent statement, which the
witness has denied or explained, and the consistent statement
supports the witness's denial or explanation
trial, Q.H. testified that the first sexual assault occurred
in April of 2014, sometime before Easter. N.T. Jury Trial,
7/1/16, at 151, 159-60. She testified that the second assault
occurred about a week later, id. at 160, and the
third in July of 2014, the day before her birthday, which is
July 29. Id. at 169.
cross-examination, defense counsel challenged this testimony,
inferring either fabrication, or inaccurate or faulty
recollection, by referring to the March 11, 2015 forensic
interview with Dr. Susan Nathan:
Q. Now, do you remember when you were interviewed by Dr.
Susan Nathan, you told her that the first ...