Evans v. York County Adult Probation and Parole Department et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying pltf's motion in limine 45 to exclude evid of substance of Evans' 2006 convictions... w/out prejudice to rts of Evans to object to evid Evans believes is improperly offered @ trial & directing that cnsl for parties shal l refrain from any mention of the specific details of the 2006 convictions in opening stmts or thereafter unless matter properly addressed @ side bar & ct deems such evid admissible @ that time. (See order for completed details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/17/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY PHILLIP EVANS,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
YORK COUNTY ADULT PROBATION :
AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT, and
:
DONALD R. LAUER, JR.,
:
:
Defendant
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1013
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the motion
in limine (Doc. 45) filed by plaintiff Gary Phillip Evans (“Evans”), in which Evans
moves to exclude from trial the substance of his 2006 convictions pursuant to
Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 609, asserting that the substance of his
convictions is irrelevant to the claims he asserts in the present action and such
evidence is highly prejudicial, and upon further consideration of the response (Doc.
47) by defendant Donald R. Lauer, Jr. (“Lauer”), wherein Lauer argues that placing
the substance of the conviction before the jury is essential for Lauer to present a
full and fair defense, and it appearing that Evans was convicted of the sexual
assault of a minor and that on May 24, 2011 his sentence, but not his conviction, was

vacated the Pennsylvania Superior Court, (see Doc. 45, Ex. A),1 and it further
appearing that the instant litigation concerns the purported unlawful supervision of
Evans by Lauer, a probation officer, subsequent to notification of Evans’ appeal of
the convictions, such supervision including preventing Evans from attending
church or living with his family, and it further appearing that Lauer contends the
restrictions were pursuant to court-mandated sex offender conditions and that it
will be “impossible to explain to the jury why Lauer restricted Evans’ access to his
family” and church without referencing the sex offender conditions (see Doc. 47 at
2, 3), and court finding that relevant evidence is admissible, but “[e]vidence which
is not relevant is not admissible” FED . R. EVID . 402, and the court concluding that
the substance of the conviction, i.e. the crimes for which Evans was convicted
(indecent assault, corruption of minors and unlawful contact with minors), is
relevant to the restrictions placed upon Evans, and the court further finding that
Lauer is not intending to use the substance of the conviction to impeach Evans and
that the sex offender status is instead the basis for the restrictions placed upon

1

Evans was convicted in state court of three counts of indecent assault, one
count of corruption of minors, and one count of unlawful contact with minors
pursuant to 18 PA . CONS. STAT. §§ 3126(a)(1), (7), (8), 6301, 6318. (Doc. 45, Ex. A at 3).
The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld Evans’ conviction but remanded the
matter for re-sentencing after concluding that the three convictions for indecent
assault merged for sentencing purposes. (Id. Ex. A at 16-25).
2

Evans, therefore rendering Rule 609 irrelevant,2 but the court recognizing that the
probative value of the specific details of the crimes resulting in conviction, such as
the age of the child and a description of the assault, is likely substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, see FED . R. EVID . 403, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

The motion in limine (Doc. 45) to exclude evidence of the substance of
Evans’ 2006 convictions (i.e. references to the names of the crimes of
conviction: indecent assault, corruption of minors and unlawful
contact with minors) is DENIED without prejudice to the rights of
Evans to object to evidence that Evans believes is improperly offered
at trial.

2.

Counsel for the parties shall refrain from any mention of the specific
details of the 2006 convictions in opening statements or thereafter,
unless the matter is properly addressed at side bar and the court
deems such evidence admissible at that time.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

2

Rule 609 states:
(a) General Rule. —For the purpose of attacking the character
for truthfulness of a witness,
(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has
been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to
Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or
imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under
which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an
accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be
admitted if the court determines that the probative value
of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect
to the accused; . . .
FED . R. EVID . 609.