DISCUSSION
In his 1925(b) statement, the defendant asserts that this Court erred in the following:
I. The Court denied evidence to be presented, pertaining to evidence of the complaining witness falsely accusing other individuals of sexual assault.
II. The Court denied evidence that the complaining witness had, on multiple occasions been committed to a mental institution.
The first supposed error is derived from Commonwealth v. Schley No.124 WDA 2015, for which the Superior Court came to the conclusion that the Rape Shield Law is not applicable to prior false sexual assault allegations. The Superior Court also declared the RSL to not considered false allegations a sexual conduct; however, this information needs to be presented as a motion in limine. Commonwealth v. Schley also remarked:
“Although Schley testified, contrary to the complainant’s testimony, that the complainant never informed Schley of any sexual assaults, the trial court, as the fact-finder, ostensibly…show more content… In 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b) it is clearly stated that “an issue has been waived if the petitioner failed to raise it and if it could have been raised . . . at the trial, [or] on appeal. . . ." This allowed the defendant to forgo the pursuance of any migrating circumstances regarding the complaint claims because it was not raised at trial. Derived from Commonwealth v. Morales:
“Since appellant waived his right to present this evidence, appellant cannot now assert that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to overrule appellant's stated desire to forego the presentation of mitigating evidence. See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 523 Pa. 305, 339-40, 567 A.2d 610, 626-27 (1989) (trial court not required to compel evidence of mitigating circumstances when a defendant waives right to pursue that evidence).” Commonwealth v. Morales, 549 Pa. 400, 701 A.2d 516
