## Facts

- K.M., age 25, had cerebral palsy that significantly limited her mobility; she used crutches to walk and had difficulty bending her knees or spreading her legs without help.
- David Joseph Gonzalez met K.M. on a Christian dating website, and they began seeing each other after meeting in person.
- During a date shortly before the incident, K.M. told Gonzalez she was a virgin and did not want to have sex before marriage.
- On March 8, 2011, Gonzalez picked K.M. up after physical therapy and brought her to his home to watch a movie.
- While watching the movie, the two began kissing and touching while clothed.
- Gonzalez asked K.M. if she wanted to go to the bedroom, and she agreed, believing the activity would remain limited to kissing and clothed touching given her earlier statement about waiting until marriage.
- In the bedroom, Gonzalez took K.M.’s crutches and placed them out of her reach, which (given her condition) made it difficult or impossible for her to get up and leave.
- Gonzalez removed K.M.’s clothing, got on top of her, and proceeded toward sexual intercourse.
- K.M. told Gonzalez not to continue; she testified that he nevertheless moved her legs into position and engaged in sexual penetration while she was unable to effectively resist due to her cerebral palsy and while she called out in pain.
- Gonzalez claimed the intercourse was consensual.
- A jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County convicted Gonzalez of rape, aggravated indecent assault, and sexual assault, and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 4–15 years’ imprisonment.
- The trial court denied post-trial and post-sentence motions, and Gonzalez appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for rape, aggravated indecent assault, and sexual assault, including whether the Commonwealth proved the force/forcible compulsion element of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether the court erred by admitting an audio recording of K.M.’s statement.
4. Whether the court erred by excluding testimony concerning K.M.’s mental-health diagnoses.
5. Whether the court erred by permitting the Commonwealth to read portions of K.M.’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial.
6. Whether the aggregate sentence was unreasonable or excessive, including for failing to account for mitigating factors.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- On sufficiency, the court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, permitted the jury to find the elements of rape and the related sexual offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; K.M.’s testimony about Gonzalez taking her crutches, preventing her from leaving, positioning her legs, and continuing after she told him to stop supported a finding of forcible compulsion and lack of consent.
- On weight, the court held the case turned on credibility and the jury was free to believe K.M. and disbelieve Gonzalez; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the audio recording of K.M.’s prior statement under the rules governing prior statements and the trial court’s evidentiary discretion.
- The court found no reversible error in excluding evidence of K.M.’s mental-health diagnoses where the defense did not establish an adequate connection between the diagnoses and testimonial reliability and where exclusion avoided unfair prejudice and confusion.
- The court found no reversible error in the use of K.M.’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial; the procedure used did not violate the rules of evidence or confrontation protections on this record.
- The court held Gonzalez raised a reviewable discretionary sentencing claim, but affirmed on the merits because the sentencing court considered appropriate factors (including the PSI and the statutory sentencing considerations) and did not impose a manifestly excessive sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the Commonwealth’s favor as verdict winner, the fact-finder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt; the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or make new credibility findings.
- Forcible compulsion may be shown through physical force or threats and through conduct that overcomes the victim’s ability to resist; the fact-finder may consider the victim’s physical condition and ability to escape or resist.
- The Commonwealth may prove the elements of sexual offenses through the complainant’s testimony alone if believed by the jury; corroboration is not required as a matter of law.
- Weight-of-the-evidence review is highly deferential; conflicts in testimony and credibility choices are for the jury, and appellate relief is limited to cases where the trial court’s denial of a new trial reflects an abuse of discretion.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; prior statements (including recorded statements) may be admissible for permitted purposes under Pennsylvania evidence rules, subject to balancing for unfair prejudice and confusion.
- Evidence about a witness’s mental-health conditions offered to impeach credibility may be excluded absent a foundation showing the condition affects perception, memory, or truth-telling in a way tied to the testimony at issue.
- Confrontation concerns are generally satisfied when the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or when prior testimony is admitted under a recognized exception consistent with confrontation requirements.
- Discretionary sentencing review requires preservation and a substantial question; a claim that a sentence is excessive coupled with an alleged failure to consider mitigating evidence can be reviewable, but relief requires a manifest abuse of sentencing discretion.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed Gonzalez’s convictions and 4–15 year aggregate sentence, holding that the jury could find forcible compulsion and non-consent from K.M.’s testimony (including that Gonzalez removed her crutches, positioned her legs, and continued after she told him to stop), that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and that the challenged evidentiary and sentencing rulings did not warrant relief.


Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (2015)