In the Int. of: J.L.W., a Minor ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • J-S23003-22
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L.W., A              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: J.L.W., A MINOR                 :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 103 MDA 2022
    Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered November 29, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
    Juvenile Division at No: CP-67-JV-0000456-2020
    BEFORE:      STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                          FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
    Appellant, J.L.W., a minor, appeals from the November 29, 2021 order
    entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County (Juvenile Division),
    adjudicating Appellant delinquent and placing him on formal probation after
    finding that Appellant committed delinquent acts of involuntary deviate sexual
    intercourse (“IDSI”), sexual assault, and indecent assault.1          Appellant
    contends that the inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony rendered the
    evidence insufficient to support the court’s findings of fact, and that those
    findings of fact were against the weight of the evidence. Following review, we
    affirm.
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1   18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3123(a)(1), 3124.1, and 3126(a)(1), respectively.
    J-S23003-22
    On July 26, 2021, the court conducted a denial hearing at which the
    Commonwealth presented testimony from the complainant, T.D., three of
    T.D.’s friends, and a forensic nurse examiner. Stipulations regarding forensic
    analyses were entered into the record. In addition, Appellant testified on his
    own behalf. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the court announced:
    In essence, this case boils down to credibility.
    The victim in this matter, T.D., indicated the sexual assault
    occurred . . . inside a bathroom at the Emigsville Park in which
    J.L.W. had forced her mouth open to perform oral sex.[2] There
    was also an attempt by J.L.W. to have vaginal intercourse with
    her as well. J.L.W. took the stand. He in essence corroborated
    the incident. However, he denied that it was not consensual at
    any point. He stated that the two went in the bathroom together
    with the purpose of having a sexual encounter, and as soon as
    T.D. indicated that she no longer wanted to, she got up and left.
    Therefore, this really rests on who the court finds more credible.
    The court does find T.D.’s statements to be credible. We conclude
    that there is no motive for her to fabricate the incident in question.
    As a result, we will find that the Commonwealth has established
    the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We are going to defer
    . . . disposition pending the completion of a case assessment as
    well as a psychosexual evaluation.
    Notes of Testimony, 7/26/21, at 125-26 (brackets omitted).
    By order dated November 22, 2021 and entered on November 29, 2021,
    Appellant was adjudicated delinquent and placed on formal probation.
    Following denial of Appellant’s post-disposition motion, Appellant filed the
    instant appeal. Both Appellant and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
    ____________________________________________
    2The events in question occurred on October 9, 2019, at which time T.D.
    was fifteen years old and Appellant, J.L.W., was thirteen years old.
    -2-
    J-S23003-22
    Appellant asks us to consider two issues, which we have reordered for
    ease of discussion:
    I.       Whether the evidence presented was insufficient to support
    the findings of fact by the trial court in that the victim’s
    testimony was inconsistent with prior statements?
    II.      Whether the findings of fact by the trial court were against
    the greater weight of the evidence in that the victim’s
    testimony was inconsistent with prior statements?
    Appellant’s Brief at 4.
    In his first issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to
    support the trial court’s findings of fact with respect to each of the crimes with
    which he was charged. As this Court reiterated in Interest of D.J.B., 
    230 A.3d 379
     (Pa. Super. 2020):
    In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
    supporting an adjudication of delinquency, our standard of review
    is as follows:
    When a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute
    a crime if committed by an adult, the Commonwealth must
    establish the elements of the crime by proof beyond a
    reasonable doubt. When considering a challenge to the
    sufficiency of the evidence following an adjudication of
    delinquency, we must review the entire record and view the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
    In determining whether the Commonwealth presented
    sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof, the test to
    be applied is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable
    inferences therefrom, there is sufficient evidence to find
    every element of the crime charged. The Commonwealth
    may sustain its burden of proving every element of the
    crime beyond a reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial
    evidence.
    -3-
    J-S23003-22
    The facts and circumstances established by the
    Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with a
    defendant’s innocence. Questions of doubt are for the
    hearing judge, unless the evidence is so weak that, as a
    matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the
    combined circumstances established by the Commonwealth.
    In re A.V., 
    48 A.3d 1251
    , 1252-1253 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation
    omitted).
    As an appellate court, we must review the entire record . . .
    and all evidence actually received[.] [T]he trier of fact while
    passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of
    the evidence produced is free to believe all, part or none of
    the evidence. Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question
    of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of
    review is plenary.
    In re C.R., 
    113 A.3d 328
    , 333-334 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations
    and quotations marks omitted).
    D.J.B., 230 A.3d at 386-87.
    Again, Appellant was charged with IDSI, sexual assault, and indecent
    assault. With regard to IDSI, “[a] person commits a felony of the first degree
    when the person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant
    . . . by forcible compulsion[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a)(1). In accordance with
    Section 3124.1 (Sexual assault), “Except as provided in section [] 3123
    (relating to [IDSI]), a person commits a felony of the second degree when
    that person engages in sexual intercourse or [IDSI] without the complainant’s
    consent.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.1. Finally, “[a] juvenile may be adjudicated
    delinquent of indecent assault if he ‘has indecent contact with the complainant
    [or] causes the complainant to have indecent contact’ with the juvenile, and
    -4-
    J-S23003-22
    the juvenile ‘does so without the complainant’s consent[.]’” D.J.B., 230 A.3d
    at 387 (quoting 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1)).
    Here, the trial court considered whether the Commonwealth established
    the elements of each charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt and
    concluded:
    First, . . . the Commonwealth has established beyond a reasonable
    doubt that [Appellant] engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with
    the victim by forcible compulsion. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3123(a)(1). The
    victim testified that “[Appellant] kept trying to push my head
    down, and then eventually he kicked the back of my legs so I
    would fall.” (Den. Hr’g Tr. 14). The victim further testified that
    “[Appellant] grabbed my face . . . so my jaw would open . . . then
    he put his fingers in my mouth so it opened . . . [thereafter] he
    put his penis in my mouth.” Id. at 15. Finding the victim credible,
    the Commonwealth has met its burden.
    Second, the Commonwealth established beyond a reasonable
    doubt that [Appellant] engaged in sexual intercourse with the
    victim without her consent. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3124.1. The victim
    testified that [Appellant] forcibly put his penis inside her mouth,
    and she further testified that “he grabbed me by my pants and
    pulled me back by them, pulled them down, pinched the back of
    my neck, and then bent me over.” (Den. Hr’g Tr. 16). As a result,
    the victim testified that [Appellant] “tried to put it in” which was
    referencing the juvenile’s attempt to insert his penis into the
    victim’s vagina. Id. at 17. Lastly, we find the Commonwealth
    established beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] had
    indecent contact with the victim and did so without the victim’s
    consent. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). When the victim was asked
    by the Commonwealth whether “[a]ny contact that happened
    between you and [Appellant] in the bathroom, was that
    voluntary,” the victim replied “No.” (Den. Hr’g Tr. 42). When
    further asked “[d]id you consent to any of it?” the victim again
    stated “No.” Id.
    Memorandum Opinion, 1/28/22, at 5-6.
    -5-
    J-S23003-22
    The court reiterated that it found the victim’s testimony credible and
    concluded that the victim lacked any motive for fabricating the incident.
    Consequently, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to find every
    element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 6. The
    court considered, but rejected, Appellant’s assertions that the lack of DNA or
    other physical evidence required a different result. Id. at 3. The court further
    considered, but rejected, Appellant’s contentions that the victim’s testimony
    was inconsistent and contradictory because (1) her testimony that she did not
    immediately leave the park was inconsistent with someone who had been
    sexually assaulted, (2) the written statements provided by her three friends
    did not include all the details to which the victim testified, and (3) the forensic
    nurse’s examination did not reveal injuries consistent with the victim’s version
    of events. Id. at 3. However, as the record reflects, the victim explained why
    she did not immediately leave the park (she sprinted up a hill to the top of the
    park and waited to see if Appellant came out of the bathroom) (Den. Hr’g Tr.
    19-20). With respect to her friends’ accounts of the incident, she stated that
    they were understandably less detailed because “[i]t didn’t happen to them.
    They’re not going to remember every single detail I told them.” (Den. Hr’g
    Tr. 37). Further, the forensic nurse’s account of what the victim reported the
    day after the incident did include details of an attempted vaginal assault and
    she did note bruising on the victim’s knees and redness on the back of the
    -6-
    J-S23003-22
    victim’s neck, consistent with the victim’s version of event. (Den. Hr’g Tr. 51,
    59).
    As the trial court stated, “[T]his case boils down to credibility.”
    Memorandum Opinion, 1/28/22, at 3. We agree. Having applied the relevant
    standards of review as set forth above, viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable inferences
    therefrom, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find every element
    of the three crimes charged, as trial court’s analysis demonstrates.
    Appellant’s sufficiency challenge fails.
    In   his   second     issue,    Appellant   makes   essentially   the   same
    “inconsistency of statements made by the victim” argument in support of his
    assertion that the court’s findings were against the weight of the evidence. 3
    As this Court explained in In re A.G.C., 
    142 A.3d 102
     (Pa. Super. 2016):
    “A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is
    sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the
    grounds that the evidence was so one-sided or so weighted in
    favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one's sense of
    justice.”   In re J.B., 
    630 Pa. 124
    , 
    106 A.3d 76
    , 95
    (2014) (citation omitted). Thus, we may reverse the juvenile
    court’s adjudication of delinquency only if it is so contrary to the
    evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. In re J.M., 
    89 A.3d 688
    , 692 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 
    628 Pa. 623
    , 
    102 A.3d 986
     (2014) (citation omitted). Moreover, where the juvenile court
    has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court’s role is
    ____________________________________________
    3Appellant properly preserved his weight of the evidence claim by raising it in
    his post-disposition motion. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 415(A)(3) (“a claim that a ruling
    on the offense or an adjudication of delinquency was against the weight of the
    evidence shall be raised with the juvenile court judge . . . in a post-
    dispositional motion pursuant to Rule 620(A)(1).”).
    -7-
    J-S23003-22
    not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is
    against weight of the evidence. 
    Id.
     Rather, this Court is limited
    to a consideration of whether the juvenile court palpably abused
    its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. 
    Id.
     Hence, a juvenile
    court’s denial of a weight claim is the least assailable of its rulings,
    as conflicts in the evidence and contradictions in the testimony of
    any witnesses are for the fact finder to resolve. 
    Id.
    Id. at 109.
    In the instant case, the trial court found the victim’s testimony to be
    credible and in support of that finding stated the following:
    The court, in evaluating the evidence, found the victim to be
    credible, passed upon Appellant’s account of the facts, and
    resolved the conflicts in testimony, determining that the offenses
    charged were supported by the weight of the evidence and proven
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Overall, the court reaffirms these findings, specifically that the
    victim in this matter appeared to be credible. We do note that
    there were inconsistencies in her testimony. However, they were
    not sufficient as to cause doubt by the court.
    Memorandum Opinion, 1/28/22, at 7-8.
    As was the case in A.G.C., Appellant here asks this Court to reweigh the
    evidence and reevaluate the trial court’s credibility determinations, “a task
    that is beyond the scope of our review.”        In re A.G.C., 142 A.3d at 109.
    Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the adjudication of
    delinquency is not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s conscience.
    Finding no palpable abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s ruling on the
    weight claim, we shall not disturb it.
    Dispositional order affirmed.
    -8-
    J-S23003-22
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 09/23/2022
    -9-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 103 MDA 2022

Judges: Stabile, J.

Filed Date: 9/23/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2022