Photo: Shutterstock

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument on alleged prejudicial comments included in the prosecution of a man convicted of sexually assaulting a child.

On May 11, the justices granted allocatur in the case of Commonwealth v. Raboin, agreeing to consider a single question: "Where the commonwealth is permitted a near blanket introduction of videotaped forensic examination of a child victim in a sexual assault case, during rebuttal, and thus not contemporaneously with any limited reference to said forensic examination by the defense, where numerous unfairly prejudicial statements are contained in the forensic examination, is such appropriate under the rule of completeness set for in Pa.R.E. 106?"

Defendant Thomas Raboin is appealing a Nov. 7, 2019, Superior Court order affirming his conviction.

The defendant argued to the Superior Court that the trial court erred by allowing a video interview of his victim, A.W., to be played during the rebuttal phase of the prosecution's case. Additionally, Raboin argued the trial court erred in ruling that statements made by A.W. to her mother identifying Raboin as her assailant were admissible.

"Given that defense counsel repeatedly questioned A.W. and Detective [Dale] Canofari regarding the forensic interview, and attempted to create inconsistencies between A.W.'s trial testimony and her statements in the forensic interview, we conclude that the commonwealth was entitled to introduce A.W.'s entire account of the assault in order to provide full context," Superior Court Judge Deborah Kunselman wrote in the court's Nov. 7 opinion. "Accordingly, even if the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the video of A.W.'s forensic video under Rule 613(c) as a prior consistent statement, we conclude that the video was nonetheless admissible under Rule 106 as a remainder of a recorded statement."

Secondly, Raboin argued that A.W.'s statements were not credible given a three-year delay in reporting the sexual assault and prejudicial.

"Given that the jury was specifically charged with evaluating the circumstances surrounding the three-year delay in reporting the abuse, we conclude that [her mother] K-L.B.'s testimony regarding A.W.'s reluctance to disclose the abuse, as well as the manner in which K-L.B. coaxed A.W. into revealing the abuse, was admissible to explain the course of conduct of K-L.B.'s prompt disclosure of the abuse upon learning about it. Indeed, defense counsel acknowledged at trial that he 'knew [the commonwealth] would have to explain why it took three years,'" Kunselman said.

Raboin is represented by Robert Mielnicki, who did not respond to a request for comment.