Harrisburg man won’t get new trial in Johnstown rape

Watler charged that information was withheld in trial for rape

A state appeals court last week refused to grant a new trial to a Harrisburg man who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for a rape committed in Johnstown a decade ago.

The issue before the Pennsylvania Superior Court was that the prosecution withheld information that the victim in 2002, under another name, had pleaded guilty to providing false reports to law enforcement in Blair County that she had been physically assaulted.

The two cases are not related, but the defendant, Carlton F. Watler III, 41, charged in a petition to the appeals court that the prosecution in his trial held before Cambria County Judge Tamara R. Bernstein "deliberately suppressed" the victim's criminal record of false reports in Blair County, which the defense considered exculpatory evidence that could have been a game-changer in his trial.

The defense was able to determine that the victim had a criminal conviction for theft by unlawful taking but, at the time of trial, did not know about her false reports conviction.

At a hearing concerning Watler's case, the Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted Watler indicated that, while it was his duty to turn over to the defense any exculpatory evidence, he didn't know about the victim's false reports conviction.

In preparing the prosecution's case, he maintained that the report of the victim's false reports conviction which occurred in 2002 did not appear in the report of her criminal history that was provided to the DA's office by the National Crime Information Center.

During the hearing, the Assistant DA stated, "If I had (the reported crime) I would have provided it to (Watler's) attorney."

The Superior Court opinion indicated that Watler himself discovered the victim's false reports conviction through a Right-to-Know petition he filed as he did research for his post-conviction appeal.

The case against Watler involved the rape of a woman that occurred in September 2016 on the 200 block of Ohio Street in Johnstown.

The victim was able to describe her assailant, but police did not make an immediate arrest.

It wasn't until May 2018 that a break in the case led to Watler's arrest.

Police were asked to investigate a suitcase found outside an abandoned building on the 300 block of Ohio Street.

In the suitcase, investigators found a letter addressed to Watler in Harrisburg.

At the time, no connection was made to the 2016 rape, but in contacting Watler, police sought a DNA sample.

His DNA matched evidence collected from the victim's clothes.

A jury convicted Watler on two counts of rape, and one count each of sexual assault, simple assault and kidnapping.

He was sentenced to a prison term 110 to 220 months.

Watler is serving his term in the State Correctional Institution Phoenix in Montgomery County.

The Superior Court judges reviewing Watker's appeal -- Anne E. Lazarus, Mary Jane Bowes and Timika Lane -- found Watler's appeal to be untimely.

He had a year from the time his case was closed to file a post-conviction petition challenging his conviction and sentence.

His present appeal was filed three years after his case was closed.

However there are exceptions concerning the timeliness rules, including "government interference" and "newly discovered evidence."

These exceptions pertaining to his case focused on the victim's conviction for false reports in 2002.

The government interference exception stemmed from the failure of the prosecution to report the false-reports conviction to the defense and newly discovered evidence exception, Watler alleged, was his finding, "by accident," of her false-reports conviction

The panel pointed out that the exceptions to the one-year timeliness rule require that the defendant use "due diligence" in discovering information about his case.

The appeals court opinion noted that once Watler began working his appeal he was able to discover the victim's criminal record for false reports with relative ease, yet it took him three years to obtain her criminal record.

The Superior Court concluded, "it appears that he could have obtained the information sooner had he employed a modicum of such diligence, and he has offered no explanation to the contrary."

Because of his lack of due diligence, the panel concluded Watler had not proven either timeliness exception.