In the Interest of: R.S.A., a Minor
In the Interest of: R.S.A., a Minor No. 3114 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 2, 2017Background
- Juvenile R.S.A., age 13, was adjudicated delinquent for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI), sexual assault, and indecent assault for conduct toward a 7‑year‑old victim at a birthday party; indecent exposure was dismissed.
- Victim reported being lured into a bathroom, told to close her eyes and open her mouth for gum, and that the Juvenile put his penis in her mouth; she identified him at trial.
- Victim disclosed the incident to her teacher, then to the school guidance counselor and her mother; those out‑of‑court statements were admitted under the Tender Years exception.
- Juvenile moved to bar evidence as "tainted" and challenged admission of out‑of‑court statements and later raised sufficiency and weight issues on appeal.
- The juvenile court found the victim credible, denied the taint motion, admitted the out‑of‑court statements as non‑testimonial, and entered the adjudication and disposition (probation and treatment).
- The Superior Court affirmed sufficiency but remanded for the juvenile to be allowed to file a post‑dispositional motion nunc pro tunc to preserve a weight‑of‑the‑evidence claim (Juvenile Rule 620 procedural issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for IDSI, sexual assault, indecent assault | Commonwealth: victim's in‑court ID and consistent out‑of‑court statements prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | R.S.A.: testimony unreliable, contradictory, insufficient to sustain adjudication | Court: Evidence sufficient; victim credible and statements consistent; adjudications sustained (except indecent exposure) |
| Weight of the evidence | R.S.A.: adjudication against weight; verdict shocks conscience | Commonwealth: not addressed in detail at trial; weight claim not preserved | Superior Court: remanded to allow filing of post‑dispositional motion nunc pro tunc to litigate weight claim (juvenile proceedings differ from criminal waiver rules) |
| Admissibility of child’s out‑of‑court statements (Tender Years) | Commonwealth: statements to teacher, counselor, mother and forensic interviewer admissible for relevance and reliability | R.S.A.: statements testimonial or tainted, violating confrontation or unreliable | Juvenile Ct.: statements to teacher, counselor, mother found non‑testimonial and reliable; admitted; earlier taint motion denied by Judge Lash and adopted by trial court |
| Sequestration / rebuttal witness (father present) | R.S.A.: father present despite sequestration order and later called as rebuttal witness | Commonwealth: father remained for child's support; testimony limited and not relied on for adjudication | Juvenile Ct.: no prejudice; testimony limited and not considered material to finding; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency review standard and role of fact‑finder)
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (juvenile weight‑of‑the‑evidence preservation and remand to permit nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion)
- In re S.R., 920 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2007) (analysis of testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements and tender‑years admissibility)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires exclusion of testimonial hearsay unless confrontation permitted)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary‑purpose test for determining testimonial statements)