In the Interest of: A.J.J., a Minor, In the Interest of: A.J.J., a Minor No. 183 MDA 2017

Appellant A.J.J., a high‑school student, and victim K.R. dated and had mostly consensual sexual contact from April–August 2015.
K.R. testified to two separate nonconsensual vaginal penetrations by A.J.J. at her home in July and August 2015; each incident occurred while others were in the house and lasted about 10–20 minutes.
A petition alleging two counts of aggravated indecent assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(1)) was filed; adjudicatory hearing held September 9, 2016, where K.R. and A.J.J. both testified.
The juvenile court found A.J.J. delinquent on both counts and placed him on probation at disposition (January 13, 2017).
On appeal, A.J.J. challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence and (2) weight of the evidence; he preserved the weight claim by raising it in his Rule 1925(b) statement.
The Superior Court adopted the juvenile court’s opinion, affirmed the adjudication, and rejected both sufficiency and weight challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (A.J.J.)	Held
Sufficiency: Whether evidence proved aggravated indecent assault beyond a reasonable doubt	K.R.’s testimony alone established nonconsensual penetration and lack of any legitimate purpose, satisfying every element	K.R.’s testimony was unreliable; relationship context and lack of corroboration defeat sufficiency	Affirmed — victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the adjudication
Weight: Whether the adjudication was against the weight of the evidence	Credibility determination in favor of K.R. was supported by the record; no basis to disturb the factfinder	Court improperly credited K.R.; delay in reporting, ongoing relationship, and lack of physical corroboration make verdict shocking	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; verdict did not shock the court’s sense of justice

Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2002) (weight‑of‑evidence claims are addressed to the trial judge's discretion)
Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2006) (standard for reviewing weight claims)
Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (appellate role is not to reweigh evidence on weight review)
Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (preservation and framing of weight claims)
Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (weight is for the trial court to resolve)
Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (new trial warranted only when verdict shocks one’s sense of justice)
Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (distinguishing sufficiency from weight claims)
McElrath, 592 A.2d 740 (Pa. 1991) (weight principles apply in juvenile proceedings)
In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (procedural preservation of weight claims in juvenile cases)
In re J.M., 89 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency standard for juvenile adjudications)
In re T.O.C., 836 A.2d 1003 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency standard applied to juvenile cases)
In re H., 648 A.2d 28 (Pa. Super. 1994) (victim’s testimony alone can support a sexual‑assault conviction)