Superior Court upholds Nanty Glo man’s long prison sentence
Smith convicted of sexual assault of 14-year-old girl
Trending
The Pennsylvania Superior Court, in an opinion issued Thursday, upheld the conviction and lengthy prison term imposed on a Nanty Glo man for the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.
The incidents charged to James G. Smith Jr., 40, who is presently incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution, Coal Township, Northumberland County, occurred in 2019 when Smith was living with the girl's mother.
According to the appeals court opinion, the girl did not disclose the incidents of abuse until 2022, when she was 16 years old.
She first mentioned Smith's abuse to her art teacher.
According to the charges, Smith entered her bedroom while her mother was asleep on a nearby couch and proceeded to rape her.
In a subsequent incident, when the mother was in the hospital due to issues with her pregnancy, Smith, it was charged, entered the victim's bedroom and fondled her.
Smith was eventually arrested and was convicted by a jury of rape by forcible compulsion, indecent exposure, indecent assault, two counts of aggravated indecent assault, endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of a minor.
Blair County President Judge Wade A. Kagarise sentenced Smith to a prison term of roughly 17 to 49 years (202 to 588 months).
Smith denied the charges, arguing he never was alone with the girl in her bedroom and that he spent his nights with the mother during her hospitalization.
Smith, through Blair County public defender Julia Burke, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Superior Court.
The focus of the appeal was the fact that the prosecution, just days prior to the start of Smith's trial, filed a motion to amend the criminal charges -- changing the time period when the alleged offenses occurred.
The initial time period in which the offenses occurred was between Dec. 1, 2017, and Sept. 16, 2019.
The amended complaint indicated the time range for the incidents was to be "on or about November 22, 2019," thus expanding the range by two months.
Also, four days before the trial was to begin, the prosecution informed the defense that it intended to introduce newly received evidence that included two examples of recent artwork by the victim, as well as email exchanges between the victim and her art teacher.
The defense was immediately informed of the new information, according to the prosecution.
The late-disclosed evidence was admitted for use in the trial.
Three questions were presented to the appeals court panel for their review of the case:
– Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to amend its complaint, changing the date range for the charges?
– Did the court abuse its discretion by denying exclusion of the late disclosed evidence (the artwork and emails)?
– Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to dismiss charges against Smith due to a violation of Pennsylvania's speedy trial law?
The Superior Court panel that included judges Victor P. Stabile, Timika Lane and John T. Bender, in reviewing the many issues, quoted frequently from the response to the defense complaints by Kagarise.
As to the amended complaint, Kagarise concluded the defense failed to "articulate any prejudice" Smith suffered due to the timing of the amended complaint.
The appeals court opinion noted, "After careful review, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the Commonwealth's motion to amend the criminal complaint."
The opinion by the Superior Court panel concluded the change to date range did not affect Smith's alibi defense that he used to counter the sexual abuse occurring while the mother was hospitalized.
With respect to the new information (the artwork and emails) permitted into the trial, the trial judge stated the defense "never asserted what rules of mandatory discovery were violated by the late disclosure of that information."
The Superior Court panel simply concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion even though the information was received only four days prior to trial.
As to the charge that the speedy trial rule had been violated, Kagarise in his opinion pointed out that the alleged new information was promptly disclosed to the defense.
The panel concluded that "all of Smith's issues are meritless."