Date: 08-20-2024

Case Style:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael David O'Brien

Case Number: CP-61-CR-000818-2020

Judge: Matthew T. Kirtland

Court: Court of Common Pleas, Venango Couonty, Criminal Division, Pennsylania

Plaintiff's Attorney: Venango County Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Franklin Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Franklin, Pennsylvania sex crime criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

K.O., then seventeen years of age, testified to the following. Appellant penetrated her vagina with his fingers and performed oral sex on her more than 200 times over an approximately five-year period. He also penetrated her vagina with his penis four separate times. Since she was afraid that no one would believe this was happening, K.O. surreptitiously recorded two conversations between her and Appellant on her iPad, referencing the abuse in general terms as "touching" and asking why he was doing it. During one of the discussions, Appellant indicated that the impetus for his conduct was at least in part that he was sexually frustrated due to lack of sex with Mrs. O'Brien. He did not refute her allegations that any touching occurred. Appellant also told K.O. not disclose what was happening because that would cause him and Mrs. O'Brien to divorce and would lead to him being in jail.

The Commonwealth next called Mrs. O'Brien to testify against Appellant. Mrs. O'Brien learned of the acts approximately ten months before charges were filed, when she found one of the videos that K.O. recorded and saved on the computer. She then confronted Appellant, who stated "[K.O.] wasn't supposed to tell you." N.T. Trial, 3/17/22, at 78. This statement was admitted over counsel's objection that it was a privileged communication between spouses. Notably, at the time Mrs. O'Brien approached Appellant, he did not deny performing the acts, nor did he accuse K.O. of lying.

Additionally, Mrs. O'Brien testified that shortly after learning of Appellant's conduct, she and Appellant legally separated and initiated divorce proceedings. During her direct examination, Mrs. O'Brien twice mentioned
that she had obtained a Protection from Abuse ("PFA") order against Appellant after learning about the abuse. In each instance, counsel promptly objected to the testimony as improper propensity evidence and moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied both motions; however, after the second time the PFA was referenced, the court issued a cautionary instruction to the jury not to consider any reference to a PFA order or proceeding. When the court asked counsel if the provided instruction was adequate, counsel indicated in the affirmative.

The Commonwealth also called as a witness Terri Watson, who served with Appellant in the military reserves in 2002-2003. Ms. Watson attested that she began a romantic relationship with Appellant after he and Mrs. O'Brien legally separated. A short time later, she learned from Appellant that he was under investigation relating to the alleged incidents, and she discussed the matter with him. Appellant conceded to her that he had sexual intercourse with K.O. one time shortly after her fifteenth birthday. Ms. Watson thereafter ended her relationship with Appellant and cancelled an upcoming trip they had planned together.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty as to all thirty-three counts, which included rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: