In the Interest of: B.F., a Minor
1324 EDA 2018
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 2, 2019Background
- Appellant B.F., then 15, invited 16-year-old neighbor M.B. to his basement on April 13, 2017; M.B. testified B.F. forcibly removed her clothing, raped her, and threatened her if she told anyone. B.F. testified the encounter was consensual.
- M.B. has diagnoses (Autism, ADHD, borderline intellectual functioning with IQ 72) and functions at an elementary grade level; her psychiatrist, Jeffrey Naser, M.D., testified about these diagnoses.
- Police investigation produced a medical exam but no physical injury, no forensic testing of clothing, no search for a purported scar, and limited witness interviews.
- Juvenile court adjudicated B.F. delinquent for Rape, Sexual Assault, and Indecent Assault after an adjudicatory hearing; disposition imposed probation, psychosexual recommendations, DNA submission, and a stay-away order.
- B.F. filed post-dispositional motions (including weight and evidentiary challenges) which were denied; he appealed the dispositional order to the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (B.F.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence | Victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to support adjudication | Verdict against the great weight of the evidence due to inconsistent statements, delayed reporting, and lack of corroboration | Juvenile court did not abuse discretion; credibility findings stand |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain rape conviction | Evidence insufficient; essentially reiterates weight arguments and lack of corroboration | Sufficiency claim fails (also waived for lack of specificity) |
| Admissibility of psychiatrist’s testimony (Dr. Naser) | Relevant to victim’s mental/functional state and forcible compulsion analysis | Testimony improperly suggested victim incapable of consent and was prejudicial/irrelevant | Admission was proper; testimony relevant to forcible compulsion and not unduly prejudicial |
| Exclusion of testimony about prior sexual conduct (Rape Shield) | Rape Shield requirements were satisfied by prosecution and court process | Mother’s oral proffer at hearing should have been allowed to show prior sexual contact between parties | Exclusion proper — defendant failed to make the required pretrial written proffer under the Rape Shield statute |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- In re J.M., 89 A.3d 688 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate scope after trial court rules on weight claim)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 953 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2008) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony may support rape conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition and scope of forcible compulsion)
- Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 510 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 1986) (factors for determining forcible compulsion)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 882 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court’s balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Burns, 988 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Rape Shield statute requires written pretrial proffer for prior sexual conduct evidence)
- In re N.C., 105 A.3d 1199 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing juvenile court evidentiary rulings)