The opinion
J-S14008-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT MOLITOR :
:
Appellant : No. 1303 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 22, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-CR-001179-2022
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 26, 2025
Appellant, Robert Molitor, appeals from the December 22, 2023
judgment of sentence entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas
following his conviction of Aggravated Indecent Assault - Complainant Less
Than 13 Years of Age, Indecent Assault - Complainant Less Than 13 years of
Age, and Corruption of Minors.1 Appellant challenges the admissibility of text
messages and asserts that the verdicts were against the weight of the
evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
We glean the relevant facts and procedural history from the trial court’s
opinion and the certified record. The case involves Appellant’s sexual abuse
of his niece (“Child”), born in 2011. During the relevant time, Child’s father
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3125(b), 3126(a)(7), and 6301, respectively.
J-S14008-25
(“Father”) had primary custody of Child, and they lived with Child’s older
brother (“Brother”), Father’s fiancée (“Stepmother”), 2 and Stepmother’s son.
Child’s mother (“Mother”) had partial custody, which she exercised at her
parents’ (“Maternal Grandparents”) home, where her brother, Appellant, also
resided.
Child often played Fortnite, a video game, with Appellant in his third-
floor bedroom at Maternal Grandparents’ home as well online from Father’s
house. Child alleged that on one occasion while she was playing Fortnite in
Appellant’s room, Appellant snuck up on her and inserted his finger into her
vagina under her clothes. While she did not initially report the abuse, at some
point in 2021, Child, then 9 years old, disclosed the assault to Brother, then
approximately 15 years old. Brother informed Stepmother and Father, who
contacted the police.
On July 26, 2021, Jovanni Velez, the Director of the Delaware County
Children’s Advocacy Center (“CAC”), engaged in a recorded forensic interview
of Child. During the interview, Child reiterated that Appellant snuck up on her
while she was playing Fortnite in Appellant’s room and inserted his finger into
her vagina under her clothes. She additionally stated that this occurred on
multiple occasions.
As part of the investigation, Father consented to a search of Child’s
phone, which revealed approximately 1,600 pages of text messages between
____________________________________________
2 While Father and his fiancée were not married at the time of trial, Child
referred to Father’s fiancée as her “stepmom.”
-2-
J-S14008-25
Child and Appellant. The trial court summarized the messages as showing
that Appellant and Child texted “in a manner befitting two [] smitten, young
teens and bearing no resemblance” to what one “would see as appropriate
between a [44-year-old] uncle and his [9-year-old] niece.” Trial Ct. Op.,
10/17/24, at 26-27. The text messages revealed that Appellant would
instigate “frequent discord” with Child, prompting Child “to profusely
apologize.” Id. at 27. In one apology in regard to whether Appellant or
Mother was a “better” Fortnite player, Child replied “I'm joking. I was joking.
I'm sorry[,]” followed immediately by “I will hump you.” Id. at 28; N.T.,
9/26/23, at 262.
After numerous continuances, the trial court presided over a five-day
jury trial from September 25-29, 2023. At trial, Child reiterated that Appellant
put his finger “inside [her] private” while she played Fortnite on his bed and
that he repeated the act other times. N.T., 9/26/23, at 74-76, 82-84. She
testified that she could not remember other details. On cross-examination,
the defense attempted to impeach Child with her prior testimony at the
preliminary hearing where she testified that Appellant touched her with “his
arm” rather than his finger. Id. at 97. On redirect, Child clarified that he
used his finger. Id. at 107.
The defense also introduced a photograph of a note painted by Child,
which read, “I’m sorry Robert[,]” implying that Child fabricated the
allegations. Id. at 99. On redirect, the Commonwealth introduced a subset
of the text messages in which Child apologized repeatedly to Appellant
-3-
J-S14008-25
regarding issues unrelated to the abuse allegation. Id. at 114. Appellant
objected claiming that the texts exceeded the scope of cross examination. Id.
The court overruled the objection, finding that Appellant had opened the door
to their admission via the painted apology note. Relevantly, Child
acknowledged that the text messages were between her and Appellant. Id.
at 119-123.
The Commonwealth additionally presented the testimony of Father,
Brother, and Stepmother, who testified to the facts set forth above. Father
and Stepmother noted that Mother and Child had court-ordered phone calls
while Child was in Father’s custody. They explained, however, that the “bulk”
of the calls were between Appellant and Child. Trial Ct. Op. at 30. Stepmother
also testified to overhearing Appellant during an online game with Child say
that “he just snuck her a kiss” when “nobody was looking[,]” which was their
“little secret.” N.T., 9/26/23, at 206-07. She additionally described seeing
text messages in which Appellant asked Child to delete other messages. Id.
at 207.
Father testified that, on a few occasions, Child returned from Mother’s
custody wearing no underwear and seemed “to be aggravated[.]” Trial Ct.
Op. at 30-31. Father additionally acknowledged a 2019 CAC forensic interview
of Child, initially stating that he did not know the reason for the interview; on
cross-examination, however, he stated that documents relating to that
interview named Appellant and Father as the potential perpetrators, but
Father asserted that CAC ultimately “didn’t find anything.” N.T., 9/26/23, at
-4-
J-S14008-25
133, 152. Father also recounted that in approximately early-2020, Brother
told him “that he had seen [Child] with her pants down, sitting on Robert’s
face.” Id. at 138. Father asserted that he reported this incident to CYS, but
CYS did not investigate the allegation.
Brother testified to the incident in 2020 and his report of the 2021
incident. On cross examination, he admitted that Maternal Grandmother
prohibited him from coming to her house because he stole money from the
house. Id. at 194-95.
Brian Knowlton, a digital forensic analyst for the Delaware County
District Attorney’s Office testified to extracting approximately 1,600 pages of
text messages between Appellant and Child from Child’s phone. Relevantly,
at sidebar, defense counsel agreed that Analyst Knowlton did not need to
acknowledge that each of the messages had been retrieved from Child’s
phone. Id. at 231-32.
Clifton Heights Police Sergeant Stephen Brown testified next regarding
his investigation of the allegations beginning in June 2021. When the
Commonwealth sought to introduce portions of the text messages, Appellant
objected, asserting various bases, including lack of authentication. Id. at 251.
The court overruled the objections, after which the Commonwealth presented
several of the text messages through Sergeant Brown’s testimony.
Finally, the Commonwealth presented CAC Director Velez, who testified
regarding her forensic interview of the Child, which the Commonwealth played
for the jury.
-5-
J-S14008-25
The defense presented the testimony of Mother and Maternal
Grandmother, who both acknowledged that Child and Appellant often played
Fortnite together, asserted that Child loved Appellant, and denied witnessing
Child be upset by Appellant. N.T., 9/27/23, at 127-28, 141-42. Appellant
additionally presented five character witnesses. 3
On September 29, 2023, the jury convicted Appellant on all counts. On
December 22, 2023, the trial court imposed on Appellant an aggregate
sentence of 5 to 10 years of incarceration followed by 3 years of probation. 4
Appellant filed post-sentence motions, claiming, inter alia, that the verdict was
against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied relief on April 11,
2024.
On May 10, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant and the
trial court subsequently complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents the following issues on appeal:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing into
evidence and publishing to the jury text messages
purportedly between [] Appellant and [Child] through
investigator Stephen Brown over defense objection as they
had not been properly authenticated?
II. Did the trial court err in denying [] Appellant’s motion for a
new trial as when the improperly admitted text messages
are excluded, the verdicts are against the weight of the
evidence?
____________________________________________
3 The Commonwealth and Appellant also presented experts regarding the
behavior of child sexual assault victims.
4 Based upon his convictions, Appellant is subject to Tier III requirements
under the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.
-6-
J-S14008-25
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
In his first issue, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting the text messages allegedly sent between Appellant
and Child, asserting that the Commonwealth failed to authenticate the
messages. Id. at 20-28.
As with other evidentiary questions, appellate courts review a trial
court’s determination regarding the authentication of text messages for abuse
of discretion. Commonwealth v. Reed, 292 A.3d 601, 605 (Pa. 2023). “[A]
trial court abuses its discretion only if it misapplies the law, or its exercise of
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias
or ill-will.” Commonwealth v. Nabried, 327 A.3d 315, 321 (Pa. Super.
2024).
Pa.R.E. 901 governs the authentication of evidence and requires the
proponent of the evidence to demonstrate that “the item is what the
proponent claims it is.” Pa.R.E. 901(a). The Rule specifically provides for the
authentication of digital evidence, such as text messages, through the
presentation of either “(A) direct evidence such as testimony of a person with
personal knowledge; or (B) circumstantial evidence such as: (i) identifying
content; or (ii) proof of ownership, possession, control, or access to a device
or account at the relevant time when corroborated by circumstances indicating
authorship.” Pa.R.E. 901(b)(11).
While the proponent of digital evidence must “produce sufficient
evidence to support a finding that a particular person or entity was the
-7-
J-S14008-25
author[,]” it need not demonstrate “that no one else could be the author.”
Pa.R.E. 901(b)(11), cmt. As this Court explained, “authentication of text
messages turns upon the depth of direct and circumstantial evidence of
authorship[.]” Commonwealth v. Orr, 255 A.3d 589, 601 (Pa. Super.
2021). Relevant circumstantial evidence of authorship includes “distinct
linguistic phrases” used by the alleged author or specific information known
only to the relevant parties. Id. at 600 (citation omitted).
We initially address whether Appellant preserved his objection to the
text messages based on authentication. The trial court opined that Appellant
waived this claim by failing to object based on authentication when the
Commonwealth read a subset of text messages during Child’s testimony,
specifically Exhibit C23; by not objecting during Analyst Knowlton’s testimony;
and by not objecting to the Commonwealth’s move to admit the exhibits at
the close of its case. Trial Ct. Op. at 90-91.
We agree that Appellant waived his objection based on authentication
in regard to Exhibit C23, the subset of text messages read into the record
during Child’s testimony.5 However, we conclude that Appellant did not waive
his authentication objection to the text messages contained in Exhibits C25-
30 by failing to object during Analyst Knowlton’s testimony. As noted, Analyst
Knowlton’s testimony addressed solely the extraction of the messages from
Child’s phone, a process which Appellant does not dispute. Instead, Appellant
____________________________________________
5 Indeed, it appears that Appellant recognizes this waiver as he seeks relief as
to “Exhibits [C]25-30,” without mention of Exhibit C23. Appellant’s Br. at 27.
-8-
J-S14008-25
preserved his authentication objection by raising it during Sergeant Brown’s
testimony addressing the content of the messages between Appellant and
Child. Moreover, Pennsylvania’s evidentiary rules clarify that Appellant did
not need to renew his objection when the Commonwealth moved to admit the
exhibits because he had previously preserved his objection. Pa.R.E. 103(b).
Turning to the merits, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed
to authenticate the text messages because it did not prove that Child and
Appellant authored the messages. Appellant’s Br. at 20-28. He notes that
the Commonwealth did not demonstrate that Appellant or Child had sole
access to their phones. Id. at 26. Indeed, he asserts that Father had access
to Child’s phone and “had motive and opportunity to fabricate communication
between” Appellant and Child, in light of the 2019 sexual abuse allegation
against Father and his contentious custody dispute with Mother. Id. at 26-
27. Appellant emphasizes that the Commonwealth did not introduce evidence
confirming that the number associated with “Uncle Rob” on Child’s phone was
in fact his number. Id. at 27. Thus, he argues that this evidence is not
sufficient for authentication of the text messages.
We reject Appellant’s argument and instead conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection. Trial Ct. Op.
at 90-97. First, Child’s testimony, which acknowledged the text
conversations, provides direct evidence that the text messages were between
her and Appellant, for purposes of Rule 901(b)(11)(A). N.T., 9/26/23, at 119-
123. Moreover, the record includes ample circumstantial evidence in the form
-9-
J-S14008-25
of identifying content demonstrating Appellant and Child’s authorship to
satisfy Rule 901(b)(11)(B), including testimony recounting that Appellant and
Child regularly texted each other. Id. at 71-72, N.T, 9/27/23, at 133.
Additionally, Child’s cell phone identified the contact as “Uncle Rob,” and the
messages referenced Appellant’s role as “uncle,” utilized a familial nickname
by which Appellant called Child, and included substantial discussion of
Fortnight, which they often played together. Id., 9/26/23, at 120-24, 262-
271; N.T. 9/27/23, at 38. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Commonwealth sufficiently
authenticated the text messages.
In his second issue, Appellant seeks a new trial, claiming that the verdict
was against the weight of the evidence. In reviewing a weight claim, this
Court does not consider “the underlying question of whether the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence,” but rather reviews the trial court’s
exercise of discretion. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa.
2000). In so doing, we “give the gravest consideration to the findings and
reasons advanced” by the trial court, which “had the opportunity to hear and
see the evidence presented[.]” Id.
In addressing a weight claim, a trial court must consider whether,
“notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight
that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny
justice.” Id. at 752 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In other
words, “a new trial should be awarded when the jury’s verdict is so contrary
- 10 -
J-S14008-25
to the evidence as to shock [the trial court’s] sense of justice and the award
of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to
prevail.” Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa. 2013) (citation
omitted).
Appellant asserts that each of his three convictions was against the
weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 28-30. His argument, however, is
premised on the inadmissibility of the text messages, a claim which we
rejected above. Appellant avers that without the text messages the jury would
be left with “the almost completely unsubstantiated testimony” of Child, which
he describes as “vague, with little detail as to when the alleged assault
occurred or as to any of the attendant circumstances.” Id. at 29-30.
Appellant contends that either Brother or Father could have “planted a seed
of a false allegation” such that the subsequent investigation and trial could
have “transpired as it did.” Id. at 30. Appellant notes that Brother, who was
the first to report the assault, had shown Child pornography and allegedly
stole money from Mother’s family. Id. Appellant also reiterates that Father
“had motive to fabricate evidence.” Id. Thus, he argues that the “verdicts
shock one’s sense of justice[.]” Id.
After careful review of the record, including the text messages, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Appellant’s
weight claim. Trial Ct. Op. at 17-40. The trial court found that Child provided
a “largely consistent” description of the assault at her forensic interview,
during the preliminary hearing, and at trial. Id. at 33-34. The court rejected
- 11 -
J-S14008-25
the defense’s suggestion that Father fabricated the allegations, opining that
Child did not possess “the needed mental acuity” to repeat the same
falsehoods “over the course of months to a professional forensic interviewer
and before the jury, both outside the presence and direct influence of her
father[.]” Id. at 36. Moreover, the court found Child’s allegations
“corroborated” by the “patently disturbing text messages of [a] sexualized
nature[,]” which evidenced Appellant’s “ongoing and varied emotional
manipulation” of Child. Id. at 37. In light of this evidence, we discern no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the verdict did not shock
its conscience. Id. at 40. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Date: 6/26/2025
- 12 -