Com. v. Richter, H.
755 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Defendant Henry B. Richter was charged after his 14-year-old niece (the victim) and DNA evidence implicated him in sexual intercourse that at least one of his sons witnessed on June 16, 2013.
- Son B.R. testified he saw the victim bent over with her pants down and Defendant standing behind her with his pants down; Defendant later told the son, “I know what you saw isn’t right and you shouldn’t have [seen] it.”
- DNA testing identified Defendant’s semen on a blanket containing the victim’s DNA; the victim testified about sexual relations with Defendant.
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated indecent assault (victim under 16; defendant ≥4 years older) and endangering the welfare of children; acquitted of statutory sexual assault counts.
- At sentencing Defendant received concurrent prison terms and was designated a Sexually Violent Predator; he appealed challenging sufficiency (and attempted weight claim which was waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated indecent assault (victim <16 and ≥4-year age difference) | Commonwealth: victim testimony, son’s eyewitness account, and DNA evidence establish penetration and age gap; not married | Richter: generally argued Commonwealth did not prove elements beyond reasonable doubt (statement lacked element-specific detail) | Affirmed — evidence sufficient (victim’s testimony corroborated by son and DNA; ages established; not married) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for endangering welfare of children (duty and knowing endangerment) | Commonwealth: Defendant was a caregiver/supervisor (provided food, lodging, set household rules); sexual act with minor shows knowing endangerment | Richter: contested overall sufficiency but did not specify which elements lacked proof | Affirmed — evidence showed defendant supervised the child and knowingly endangered her welfare by engaging in sexual acts |
| Waiver of appellate claims (failure to specify elements in Rule 1925(b) statement) | Commonwealth/Trial Court: Rule 1925(b) requires specificity to preserve sufficiency challenges | Richter: filed a general sufficiency claim without element-level specificity | Held waived for appellate review, but court alternatively reached merits and found sufficiency satisfied |
| Weight of the evidence claim | N/A (Commonwealth opposed; trial court noted claim not preserved) | Richter: attempted to raise weight claim on appeal | Waived — not raised in post-sentence motion or properly preserved in trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sufficiency review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (elements of EWOC)
- Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (victim testimony alone can support sexual-assault conviction if believed)
- Commonwealth v. Harper, 403 A.2d 536 (Pa.) (view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (need to specify insufficiency elements in 1925(b) to preserve claim)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (same—specificity requirement for sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 825 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (weight claim waiver when not raised post-sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 103 A.3d 1240 (Pa.) (inconsistent jury verdicts permitted)