J-S44022-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : IRVIN JAMES SAUNDERS : : Appellant : No. 2464 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002480-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2026
Appellant, Irvin James Saunders, appeals from the August 15, 2024
judgment of sentence of life in prison entered in the Delaware County Court
of Common Pleas following his conviction by a jury of Rape of a Child and
related offenses. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions and the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine.
After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Briefly, the
Commonwealth arrested and charged Appellant in connection with his sexual
abuse of his minor nieces, D.D. (“Child 1”) and D.D. (“Child 2”) (collectively,
“Children”), while Children were under the age of thirteen. Relevant to this
appeal, on January 26, 2023, in response to an expert report prepared for the
Commonwealth by child welfare consultant Jacqueline Block-Goldstein,
Appellant filed a “Motion in Limine to Preclude Commonwealth’s Expert J-S44022-25
Witness From Bolstering & Bootstrapping Credibility Under 42 P.S. § 5920.”
In this motion, Appellant asked the trial court to preclude Ms. Block-
Goldstein’s testimony because her report and anticipated testimony
impermissibly encroached on the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility.
See Motion, 1/26/24, at 1-12 (unpaginated). On March 9, 2023, after a
hearing, the trial court denied the motion but acknowledged that its ruling was
based on a limited pre-trial record and could be revisited at trial.
On May 7, 2024, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial. The
Commonwealth presented testimony from, inter alia, Children and Ms. Block-
Goldstein. The court qualified Ms. Block-Goldstein as an expert without
objection from Appellant and Ms. Block-Goldstein testified to the ways child
victims may react to, remember, or disclose child abuse. Appellant did not
move to strike any portion of her testimony or renew his motion in limine.
On May 10, 2024, the jury found Appellant guilty of one count each of
Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault (Complainant Less than 13),
Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Child, and two counts each of
Indecent Assault (Complainant Less than 13) and Corruption of a Minor. 1
On August 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison
as a repeat child sex offender pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a). On
September 10, 2024, Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal. After the trial
court appointed appellate counsel, Appellant filed a counseled Pa.R.A.P. ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(c), 3125(a)(7), 3123(b), 3126(a)(7), and 6301(a)(1)(ii),
respectively.
-2- J-S44022-25
1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal on December 30,
2024. The trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Was there sufficient evidence presented at the time of [t]rial to convict [Appellant] of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault with Person less than Thirteen, Involuntary Deviate Sex with Child, Indecent Assault with Person less than Thirteen and Corruption of Minors?
2. Was the [t]rial [c]ourt in error in denying [Appellant’s] [m]otion to preclude certain Commonwealth witnesses from testifying at the time of [t]rial?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
Appellant first contends that the Commonwealth’s evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions. Id. at 13-38. Appellant asserts that
Child 1 testified inconsistently at the preliminary hearing and at trial and
argues that “sufficient reasonable doubt was raised, especially examining the
cross-examination of [Child 1] so that it is not reasonable for a jury to find
the necessary elements of the criminal offenses[.]” Id. at 37-38.
“In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the
element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super.
2013). “Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where [] the
appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous
elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009). “Where a
-3- J-S44022-25
1925(b) statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, [] the
sufficiency issue is waived[.]” Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260
(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
In this case, Appellant’s 1925(b) statement baldly states that the
evidence was insufficient to support his numerous convictions. See 1925(b)
Statement (“Was there sufficient evidence presented at the time of [t]rial to
convict [Appellant] of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault with
Person less than Thirteen, Involuntary Deviate Sex with Child, Indecent
Assault with Person less than Thirteen and Corruption of Minors?”). The trial
court, in its 1925(a) opinion, found Appellant’s sufficiency challenge waived
because Appellant failed to identify a particular element of any of the charges
for which he was convicted. Trial Ct. Op., 3/25/25, at 12. We are constrained
to agree and, thus, conclude that Appellant’s first issue is waived.
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his January
26, 2023 motion and allowing Ms. Block-Goldstein to testify. Appellant’s Br.
at 38-41. He contends that the expert’s testimony “although comprehensive
about child sexual abuse victim reactions generically was in no way specific as
to the events for which [Appellant] was charged.” Id. at 40.
We review the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine for an abuse of
discretion. Commonwealth v. Schley, 136 A.3d 511, 514 (Pa. Super.
2016). “An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of
judgment, but rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion which
overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly
-4- J-S44022-25
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Id.
(citation omitted).
“[A] properly qualified expert may testify to facts and opinions
regarding specific types of victim responses and behaviors in certain criminal
proceedings involving sexual assaults, provided experts do not offer opinions
regarding the credibility of any witnesses, including the victim.”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 240 A.3d 881, 897 (Pa. 2020) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 5920(b)(3)). Our Supreme Court has declined to “categorically preclude[]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S44022-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : IRVIN JAMES SAUNDERS : : Appellant : No. 2464 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0002480-2022
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2026
Appellant, Irvin James Saunders, appeals from the August 15, 2024
judgment of sentence of life in prison entered in the Delaware County Court
of Common Pleas following his conviction by a jury of Rape of a Child and
related offenses. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his convictions and the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine.
After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Briefly, the
Commonwealth arrested and charged Appellant in connection with his sexual
abuse of his minor nieces, D.D. (“Child 1”) and D.D. (“Child 2”) (collectively,
“Children”), while Children were under the age of thirteen. Relevant to this
appeal, on January 26, 2023, in response to an expert report prepared for the
Commonwealth by child welfare consultant Jacqueline Block-Goldstein,
Appellant filed a “Motion in Limine to Preclude Commonwealth’s Expert J-S44022-25
Witness From Bolstering & Bootstrapping Credibility Under 42 P.S. § 5920.”
In this motion, Appellant asked the trial court to preclude Ms. Block-
Goldstein’s testimony because her report and anticipated testimony
impermissibly encroached on the jury’s role in assessing witness credibility.
See Motion, 1/26/24, at 1-12 (unpaginated). On March 9, 2023, after a
hearing, the trial court denied the motion but acknowledged that its ruling was
based on a limited pre-trial record and could be revisited at trial.
On May 7, 2024, Appellant proceeded to a jury trial. The
Commonwealth presented testimony from, inter alia, Children and Ms. Block-
Goldstein. The court qualified Ms. Block-Goldstein as an expert without
objection from Appellant and Ms. Block-Goldstein testified to the ways child
victims may react to, remember, or disclose child abuse. Appellant did not
move to strike any portion of her testimony or renew his motion in limine.
On May 10, 2024, the jury found Appellant guilty of one count each of
Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault (Complainant Less than 13),
Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Child, and two counts each of
Indecent Assault (Complainant Less than 13) and Corruption of a Minor. 1
On August 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison
as a repeat child sex offender pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714(a). On
September 10, 2024, Appellant filed a timely pro se appeal. After the trial
court appointed appellate counsel, Appellant filed a counseled Pa.R.A.P. ____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121(c), 3125(a)(7), 3123(b), 3126(a)(7), and 6301(a)(1)(ii),
respectively.
-2- J-S44022-25
1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal on December 30,
2024. The trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Was there sufficient evidence presented at the time of [t]rial to convict [Appellant] of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault with Person less than Thirteen, Involuntary Deviate Sex with Child, Indecent Assault with Person less than Thirteen and Corruption of Minors?
2. Was the [t]rial [c]ourt in error in denying [Appellant’s] [m]otion to preclude certain Commonwealth witnesses from testifying at the time of [t]rial?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
Appellant first contends that the Commonwealth’s evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions. Id. at 13-38. Appellant asserts that
Child 1 testified inconsistently at the preliminary hearing and at trial and
argues that “sufficient reasonable doubt was raised, especially examining the
cross-examination of [Child 1] so that it is not reasonable for a jury to find
the necessary elements of the criminal offenses[.]” Id. at 37-38.
“In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the
element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was
insufficient.” Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super.
2013). “Such specificity is of particular importance in cases where [] the
appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous
elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009). “Where a
-3- J-S44022-25
1925(b) statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, [] the
sufficiency issue is waived[.]” Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260
(Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
In this case, Appellant’s 1925(b) statement baldly states that the
evidence was insufficient to support his numerous convictions. See 1925(b)
Statement (“Was there sufficient evidence presented at the time of [t]rial to
convict [Appellant] of Rape of a Child, Aggravated Indecent Assault with
Person less than Thirteen, Involuntary Deviate Sex with Child, Indecent
Assault with Person less than Thirteen and Corruption of Minors?”). The trial
court, in its 1925(a) opinion, found Appellant’s sufficiency challenge waived
because Appellant failed to identify a particular element of any of the charges
for which he was convicted. Trial Ct. Op., 3/25/25, at 12. We are constrained
to agree and, thus, conclude that Appellant’s first issue is waived.
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his January
26, 2023 motion and allowing Ms. Block-Goldstein to testify. Appellant’s Br.
at 38-41. He contends that the expert’s testimony “although comprehensive
about child sexual abuse victim reactions generically was in no way specific as
to the events for which [Appellant] was charged.” Id. at 40.
We review the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine for an abuse of
discretion. Commonwealth v. Schley, 136 A.3d 511, 514 (Pa. Super.
2016). “An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of
judgment, but rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion which
overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly
-4- J-S44022-25
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Id.
(citation omitted).
“[A] properly qualified expert may testify to facts and opinions
regarding specific types of victim responses and behaviors in certain criminal
proceedings involving sexual assaults, provided experts do not offer opinions
regarding the credibility of any witnesses, including the victim.”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 240 A.3d 881, 897 (Pa. 2020) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 5920(b)(3)). Our Supreme Court has declined to “categorically preclude[]
expert testimony concerning victim behavior in response to sexual abuse.”
Id.
The trial court found that Ms. Block-Goldstein’s testimony “detailed
generally the various ways child victims may react to, remember and/or
disclose abuse” “without offering testimony regarding the credibility of any
witnesses involved in the case, including the juvenile victims[,]” in compliance
with Section 5920. Trial Ct. Op. at 38-39. On appeal, Appellant fails to
specifically identify how Ms. Block-Goldstein’s testimony “encroach[ed] on the
factfinder’s exclusive witness credibility determination” or violated Section
5920. Appellant’s Br. at 39. Based on our review of the record, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion
in limine as Ms. Block-Goldstein permissibly testified regarding victim
responses and behaviors and did not offer opinions regarding the credibility of
any witnesses. See Jones, 240 A.3d at 897; N.T. Trial, 5/8/24, at 38-86.
Appellant’s second issue is, therefore, without merit.
-5- J-S44022-25
Having found Appellant’s issues either waived or meritless, we affirm
the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 2/19/2026
-6-