Summary
In Commonwealth v. Erb, 524 Pa. 103, 569 A.2d 352 (1990), our Supreme Court reversed an unpublished order of this Court which had granted a new trial based upon the exclusion of excerpt from the complainant's diary describing her sexual interest in a boyfriend, which had been offered to establish a motive to make false charges of sexual assault against her father, who had allegedly thwarted the relationship between his daughter and the boyfriend by recently moving the family.
Summary of this case from Com. v. NievesOpinion
Argued January 26, 1990.
Decided February 6, 1990. Reargument Denied March 26, 1990.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Criminal Division, 1987 at No. 5315-85, Anthony R. Semararo, J.
William H. Ryan, Dist. Atty., Sandra L. Elias, Chief, Law Appeals Unit, Vram Nedurian, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Deputy Dist. Atty., Ronald Eisenberg, Deborah Fleisher, Philadelphia, Chief, Appeals Div., for amicus — Phila. D.A.
Joseph D. Branca, Aston, for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
ORDER
The Order of the Superior Court is reversed. 380 Pa. Super. 645, 547 A.2d 436 (1988). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding those portions of the victim's diary which were protected by the Rape Shield Law, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3104. Commonwealth v. Majorana, 503 Pa. 602, 470 A.2d 80 (1983).