In the Interest of: D.L.F., a Minor
In the Interest of: D.L.F., a Minor No. 2018 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Juvenile D.L.F., a Bucks County resident, was adjudicated delinquent in Delaware County for rape of a child and indecent assault involving his 7‑year‑old stepsister; other counts were nolle prossed.
- The Delaware County court (Judge Nichols) adjudicated delinquency after an April 2016 hearing; disposition was transferred to Bucks County for final disposition.
- D.L.F. was detained pending a psycho‑sexual evaluation and ultimately placed at the George Junior Diagnostic Unit after a May 31, 2016 dispositional hearing in Bucks County (Judge Finley).
- At the adjudicatory hearing the victim testified that D.L.F. “put his private part in my bottom,” and specified it “slipped downwards,” which the courts found sufficient to establish penetration.
- D.L.F. challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for rape of a child (penetration), and (2) failure of the juvenile court to make an explicit Rule 409/42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(b) finding that he was in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation prior to disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape of a child (penetration) | Victim’s testimony did not establish penetration because she said the penis “slipped downwards.” | The Commonwealth argued the victim repeatedly said the penis was put “in” her bottom, supporting penetration. | Court affirmed: viewed most favorably to Commonwealth, victim’s repeated statements were sufficient to show penetration. |
| Failure to make explicit need‑for‑treatment finding under § 6341(b)/R.J.C.P. 409 | Judge Nichols failed to make an express post‑adjudication finding that D.L.F. needed treatment, as required by M.W. | Commonwealth/court noted felony adjudication creates a presumption and case was transferred for disposition; no contemporaneous objection was made. | Court held error existed (M.W. requires an explicit finding) but claim waived because D.L.F. did not timely object in the trial courts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standards for sufficiency of evidence and interpretation of sexual‑intercourse/penetration)
- In the Interest of M.W., 39 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2012) (juvenile court must make an explicit finding on need for treatment/supervision even where a felony has been proven)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of the evidence review standards)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 326 A.2d 356 (Pa. 1974) (judge as factfinder may render inconsistent verdicts)