In the Interest of: R.S.A., a Minor, In the Interest of: R.S.A., a Minor No. 3114 EDA 2015

Appellant R.S.A., age 13, was adjudicated delinquent for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child (IDSI), sexual assault, and indecent assault based on allegations that he lured a 7‑year‑old victim into a bathroom at a child’s birthday party and put his penis in her mouth.
Victim identified Appellant at the adjudicatory hearing; the juvenile court found her testimony credible and consistent with prior statements to teacher, counselor, and mother.
The juvenile court placed Appellant on probation, ordered participation in an outpatient sex‑offender program (DelStar), drug screens, no unsupervised contact with children under 12, and a curfew.
On appeal, Appellant challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the delinquency adjudications and (2) that the adjudications were against the weight of the evidence.
The Superior Court affirmed sufficiency, agreeing the Commonwealth presented adequate, consistent testimony to sustain the adjudications.
Because Appellant did not file a post‑dispositional motion raising a weight claim, the Superior Court remanded to permit nunc pro tunc filing of such a motion, following juvenile‑procedure precedents addressing preservation of weight claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support adjudications	Commonwealth: Victim’s consistent testimony and prior statements proved elements of IDSI, sexual assault, and indecent assault.	Appellant: Evidence was unreliable and contradictory, insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Affirmed: Evidence was sufficient; victim credible and testimony consistent with prior statements.
Whether adjudications were against the weight of the evidence	Commonwealth: Not directly argued below; relied on sufficiency and credibility findings.	Appellant: Adjudications shock the conscience; trial court should reassess facts and grant new adjudication.	Not resolved on merits: Remanded to juvenile court to allow Appellant to file a post‑dispositional motion nunc pro tunc to present the weight challenge.

In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (juvenile delinquency rules silence on preserving weight claims requires remand to allow post‑dispositional motion nunc pro tunc).
Interest of J.G., 145 A.3d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applies In re J.B.; declines to deem weight claim waived where juvenile first raised it in Rule 1925(b), remanding for post‑dispositional motion).