Interest of: D.J.B., A Minor, Appeal of: D.J.B.
580 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Appellant D.J.B., born Oct. 1999, was adjudicated delinquent on Dec. 8, 2016 for multiple counts arising from alleged sexual and related offenses against two younger boys (C.C., b. Dec. 2005; G.W., b. Aug. 2003) stemming from an incident in Appellant’s bedroom in summer 2015.
- At the contested adjudicatory hearing, the two alleged victims testified that they were confined in Appellant’s room/closet and that Appellant touched their genitals; their accounts differed on some details (location and specifics).
- The juvenile court found Appellant delinquent on all charges. No post-dispositional motion or timely notice of appeal was filed initially; counsel later sought and obtained reinstatement of appeal rights (nunc pro tunc) after filing notice under an incorrect docket number.
- Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement raising a weight-of-the-evidence challenge, but the statement was filed untimely; the juvenile court nevertheless addressed the merits but noted it was divested of jurisdiction to decide the weight claim after appeal was filed.
- The Superior Court agreed that because the weight claim was first raised after the notice of appeal (in the 1925(b) statement), remand was required to permit Appellant to file a post-dispositional motion nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication should be overturned as against the weight of the evidence | Evidence was insufficient/contradictory; victims’ stories differ and Appellant wasn’t present per defense; motive to fabricate | Court found victims’ testimony credible enough for adjudication; juvenile court considered the issue | Remand: juvenile court lacked jurisdiction post-appeal to finally resolve weight claim; permit nunc pro tunc post-dispositional motion and reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakeney v. Commonwealth, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (appellate standard for reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims rests with trial court discretion)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (weight claims must be addressed by trial court first)
- Karkaria v. Commonwealth, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (weight of the evidence is for trial court to resolve)
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (when weight claim first appears after notice of appeal in 1925(b), remand for nunc pro tunc post-dispositional motion is required)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (late 1925(b) filing can be excused where trial court had adequate opportunity to address issues)