In the Interest of: S.P., a Juvenile
2508 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Victim (15) and friend met Appellant (16) in a park at ~11:00 PM to smoke marijuana; when Victim left, Appellant demanded payment of money or sex.
- Appellant allegedly groped Victim over her underwear, exposed his penis, grabbed her neck, and demanded oral sex; Victim repeatedly refused and left with her friend.
- Later that night Appellant sent a Snapchat message to Victim; Victim took a screenshot which the Commonwealth admitted at adjudicatory hearing without objection.
- On June 17, 2016, juvenile court adjudicated Appellant delinquent of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, Indecent Assault, and Indecent Exposure; on July 6, 2016 Appellant was placed on probation.
- Appellant appealed raising sufficiency, authenticity of the Snapchat, weight of evidence (including surveillance video and text timestamps), and character-evidence claims.
- Superior Court: sufficiency and authentication claims deemed waived; remanded solely to permit a nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion on weight-of-the-evidence issues so the juvenile court can rule specifically.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for three sexual offenses | Commonwealth contends evidence (victim testimony, Snapchat) proves elements beyond reasonable doubt | Appellant argues evidence insufficient to prove elements of each offense | Waived for appeal due to Rule 1925(b) statement lacking specificity |
| Authentication of Snapchat screenshot (C-5) | Commonwealth relied on victim’s screenshot as evidence of Appellant’s message | Appellant contends Commonwealth failed to prove Appellant authored/forwarded the Snapchat | Waived—no contemporaneous objection at adjudicatory hearing |
| Weight of the evidence (video, texts, altered screenshot, character evidence) | Commonwealth maintains victim testimony and exhibits support court’s credibility determinations | Appellant argues conflicting surveillance/timestamp evidence and altered screenshot undermine conviction; sought greater weight for character evidence | Not decided on merits; remanded so Appellant may file nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion challenging weight and obtain a specific juvenile court ruling |
| Juvenile procedural preservation standard | Commonwealth and juvenile court treated preservation rules as requiring post‑dispositional motion for weight claims | Appellant notes juvenile rules differ from adult criminal practice and raised weight claim in Rule 1925(b) statement | Court follows In re J.B.: weight claims first raised in 1925(b) are not automatically waived; remand for nunc pro tunc motion and specific ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.A.G., 89 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2014) (juvenile court discretion on disposition reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (juvenile weight‑of‑evidence claims first raised in Rule 1925(b) require remand for nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion rather than automatic waiver)
- In Interest of J.G., 145 A.3d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2016) (preservation rules for sufficiency and specificity in Rule 1925(b) statements)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (issues not developed per Pa.R.A.P. result in waiver)