This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence entered after appellant’s conviction on one (1) count of rape, 1 one (1) count of statutory rape, 2 four (4) counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 3 six (6) counts of indecent assault 4 and six (6) counts of corruption of a minor. 5 A jury found appellant guilty after a four day trial and appellant’s post-verdict motions were summarily denied at the sentencing hearing. This timely appeal ensued. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Appellant raises eight issues for our review:
1. Whether the defendant is entitled to judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial on the rape conviction where the Commonwealth failed to prove access and/or forcible compulsion and on the statutory rape conviction where the defendant conclusively established nonaccess and asserts a Devlin claim.
2. Whether the judgment of sentence must be vacated where the prosecution failed to prove the dates of the alleged offenses of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse with reasonable certainty and where the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error in not sua sponte ordering a mistrial when informed of jury misconduct.
4. Whether the lower court reversibly erred in refusing the defendant’s request for a charge on lack of prompt complaint.
5. Whether the lower court improperly assumed the role of prosecutorial advocate thereby mandating a new trial.
*174 6. The defendant incorporates by reference all assignments of error set forth in his post-trial motions and not addressed by lower courts opinion.
We shall address these contentions seriatim.
The pertinent facts, as adduced in the trial testimony, indicate that Appellant initiated sexual relations with his niece, D.R., when she was thirteen years old. This conduct consisted of at least six different incidents of sexual intercourse and oral copulation, beginning in June, 1987 and continuing over the course of one year. The first incident occurred when D.R. slept overnight at appellant’s house on or about June 8, 1987. During the night, appellant approached D.R., as she lay on a sofa in the living room and asked her to pull down her underwear. She did not comply and appellant pulled off her underwear and began sexual intercourse with her. After the intercourse, appellant told the girl not to tell anybody since he would get in trouble.
Thereafter, appellant victimized D.R. by forcing her to perform oral sex. The victim testified that five incidents occurred at various times over a one year period. However, D.R. could not provide a specific date for all the incidents. The first act of oral copulation transpired when appellant called D.R. at home on a weekday in July, 1987, at approximately 12:30 in the afternoon. Appellant asked the victim to walk to a nearby grocery store to meet him. They then drove to the Elk Creek Access Area where he inserted his penis in her mouth. The second episode occurred when D.R. was at appellant’s residence. He escorted her to the basement and, again, inserted his penis into her mouth. The third occasion took place on Thanksgiving of 1987. The girl testified that she was visiting appellant and his family that evening and he took D.R. and her sister to his place of business to turn off the furnace. When they arrived at the business, appellant gave D.R.’s sister money to play a video game while he asked D.R. to accompany him to the furnace room. Once there he inserted his penis into the victim’s mouth. The fourth and fifth incidents of oral copulation occurred at appellant’s place of business. D.R. testified *175 that she was in the storeroom, and appellant asked her to come into a back room where he coerced her to perform oral sex. 6
The last incident of sexual conduct occurred in appellant’s home after the Lake City Volunteer Firemen’s Picnic on June 10, 1988. D.R. testified that she was sleeping alone in her cousin’s room at appellant’s residence when he came in wearing a towel and inserted his penis into her vagina. She testified that after penetration, she rolled over and appellant left the room.
Appellant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of rape, statutory rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. We will initially address appellant’s rape conviction. Our standard of review based on sufficiency of the evidence is quite limited:
The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether accepting as true all of the evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Lovette,
Appellant charges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for rape because the Commonwealth failed to prove forcible compulsion or access to the defendant. According to the trial testimony, appellant raped D.R. on June 10, 1988, the night after he and his wife took D.R. to the Lake City Firemen’s Picnic. The evidence shows that appellant approached D.R., who was alone in her cousin’s bedroom, wearing a towel. He took the towel off *176 and inserted his penis into her vagina. After the penetration, she rolled over and he left. The question is now whether the evidence is sufficient to prove forcible compulsion.
Our supreme court has held that “forcible compulsion” as used in 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3121(1) includes not only physical force or violence but also moral, psychological or intellectual force used to compel a person to engage in sexual intercourse against that person’s will.
Commonwealth v. Rhodes,
In a detailed opinion, our supreme court reversed finding that the eight-year-old victim was so mentally deficient as a matter of law, that she was incapable of consenting to the incident of sexual intercourse, thereby proving rape under section 3121.
Id.,
In common usage, therefore, the phrase “forcible compulsion” clearly connotes more than the exercise of sheer physical force or violence.... The phrase also connotes the act of using superior force—physical, moral psycho *177 logical, or intellectual—to compel a person to do a thing against that person’s volition and/or will.
Id.,
The Superior Court has held that the “degree of force involved in rape ... is defined, not in terms of the physical injury to the victim, but in terms of the effect it has on the victim’s volition.” Accordingly, the force necessary to support convictions for rape ... need only be such as to establish lack of consent and to induce the woman to submit without additional resistance____ The degree of force required to constitute rape is relative and depends upon the facts and particular circumstances of the case.
Id.,
Such a determination is based on the totality of the circumstances that have been presented to the fact finder. Significant factors to be weighed in that determination would include the respective ages of the victim and the accused, the respective mental and physical conditions of the victim and the accused, the atmosphere and physical setting in which the incident was alleged to have taken place, the extent to which the accused may have been in a position of authority, domination or custodial control over the victim, and whether the victim was under duress. This list of possible factors is not exclusive.
Id.,
Various decisions of this court have discussed
Rhodes
in determining whether forcible compulsion is present.
Compare Commonwealth v. Dorman,
Here, appellant was the victim’s uncle. This relationship tends to prove that the appellant enjoyed a relationship of trust and confidence with the victim. The uncle-niece relationship, however, is more attenuated than the parent-child relationship. Therefore, the relationship alone, however, will not suffice to find forcible compulsion.
Titus, supra,
Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth and all reasonable inferences therefrom, we find that despite a relationship of trust and confidence between the victim and her uncle, the uncle took advantage of this relationship to engage in sexual intercourse with her, which she resisted. N.T. 7/17/89 at 28. He then emotionally exploited her by requesting she not tell anyone about the *179 incident or he would get into trouble. He continued the pursuit of the sexual assaults relying on the impact of his intimidation to exact B.R.’s submission. We find that these sexual assaults, committed on that basis, sufficiently frustrated B.R.’s will to resist so as to find that she was raped by forcible compulsion. Cf. Commonwealth v. Robinson, supra (where a course of conduct is sufficient to sustain convictions for sexual assault despite the Commonwealth’s failure to provide dates for all instances of sexual abuse); Commonwealth v. Ruppert, supra (evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for sexual offenses where father repeatedly raped his nine-year-old daughter for a period of three months).
Appellant next argues that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of statutory rape. Specifically, he argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish the date of the incident with reasonable certainty. This argument is devoid of merit. The record clearly supports the finding that the incident for which appellant was convicted of statutory rape occurred on June 8, 1987. N.T. July 17, 1989, at 47.
Appellant’s next contention of error is that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Specifically, he argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish the dates for these instances with reasonable certainty. Appellant relies on our supreme court’s holding in
Commonwealth v. Devlin,
*180
Appellant directs us to the case of
Commonwealth v. Groff,
Where the victim was a child, the crime had been repeated frequently over a lengthy period and the Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to establish specific dates on several occasions, the convictions will be sustained.
Commonwealth v. Robinson, supra,
Implicitly, appellant argues that his convictions for rape, statutory rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse must be overturned because the verdicts are against the weight of the evidence. Appellant contends that his witnesses conclusively established non-access to the victim at the time of the various incidents. Our scope of review for a claim that the verdict is against the weight of
*181
the evidence is very narrow.
Commonwealth v. Hamilton,
Appellant’s third assertion is that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to declare a mistrial when presented with certain juror misconduct. Trial counsel informed the trial judge of a conversation between two jurors in the woman’s restroom. The trial judge conducted a
voir dire
interview of the jurors and subsequently dismissed one juror who admitted to participating in conversation about the case. However, appellant’s counsel never requested a mistrial. A defendant is required to request a mistrial because of an event prejudicial to him when the event is disclosed. Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1118, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Since appellant failed to move for a mistrial, he cannot now complain that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial
*182
when no such motion was made.
7
Commonwealth v. Tallon,
Appellant’s fourth claim is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the issue of “prompt complaint.” Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lack of prompt complaint by the victim because the defense relied at trial on the theory that the events alleged by D.R. never occurred. We disagree. Appellant directs us to our supreme court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Snoke,
[W]here the actual occurrence of the assault is at issue in the case, the trial judge is required to charge the jury as to the relevance of a delay in disclosure and the significance of a prompt complaint. In such an assessment the witness’ understanding of the nature of the conduct is critical. Where the victim did not comprehend the offensiveness of the contact at the time of its occurrence, the absence of an immediate complaint may not legitimately be used to question whether the conduct did in fact occur.
Id.,
While the average thirteen- or fourteen-year-old girl may have developed some knowledge regarding sexual relations, we decline to find that every girl of that age has this knowledge. Thus, where there is no conclusive evidence regarding a minor victim’s comprehension of the offensive acts in question, the trial court must consider other factors to determine whether that victim may have a legitimate reason for delay in complaining. We find the factors set
*183
out by our supreme court in
Rhodes, supra,
to determine whether forcible compulsion was present to prove rape equally compelling here. These factors include age of the victim, the mental and physical condition of the victim, the atmosphere and physical setting in which the incidents were alleged to have taken place, the extent to which the accused may have been in a position of authority, domination or custodial control over the victim, and whether the victim was under duress.
Rhodes, supra,
In this case, the trial judge erred in determining that 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3105 precludes an instruction regarding prompt complaint. Snoke allows such a charge when the actual occurrences of the sexual assaults are in issue and where the victim comprehends the offensiveness of the sexual assaults at the time of their occurrence. The record in this case, however, is devoid of any evidence of what the victim comprehended regarding these sexual assaults. 8 The logical inference from the victim’s testimony is that other legitimate factors may have influenced her not to tell about these incidents. Her uncle told her not to tell anyone lest *184 he get in trouble. Moreover, the victim was at a difficult age to be able to adequately comprehend the nature of the acts perpetrated against her. The circumstances involved here lead us to conclude that the minor victim was under sufficient duress to legitimately explain her delay in complaining. Therefore, despite the trial court’s misapplication of the pertinent law, it was not error for the court to refuse to charge on prompt complaint.
Next, appellant contends that a new trial should be granted because the trial judge acted improperly by questioning witnesses and acting as a prosecutorial advocate. A new trial is required only when the trial court’s questioning is prejudicial, that is when it is of such a nature or substance or delivered in such a manner that it may reasonably be said to have deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial.
Commonwealth v. Purcell,
The trial judge stated that his questioning was to clarify Dr. Molina’s testimony. N.T. 7/18/89 at 109. While such questioning is better left to the trial attorneys, we find that *185 the questioning merely clarified Dr. Molina’s testimony. Moreover, appellant’s contention that the trial judge severely limited Dr. Molina’s testimony regarding his pain and suffering is unfounded. Appellant has not directed us any such incident in the record, nor have we found any evidence to support this contention. We see no indication in the record that the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses deprived appellant of a fair and impartial trial, and conclude the lower court’s actions were proper.
Regrettably, appellant’s last argument avers that this court should entertain all arguments appellant raised in his post-trial motions which the trial court failed to address. Such a contention is not sufficient to facilitate appellate review under Pa. R.A.P. Rules 2116 and 2119.
See First Seneca Bank v. Greenville Distributing Company,
Judgment of Sentence affirmed.
Notes
. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3121.
. Id. § 3122.
. Id. § 3123.
. Id. § 3126.
. Id. § 6301.
. Although there were five incidents to which D.R. testified, the information only contained four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
. Appellant’s counsel argues that since the trial judge considered whether to grant a mistrial after the Commonwealth’s refutation of the grounds for such a mistrial this issue is preserved for appellate review. However, his cursory consideration of a mistrial is insufficient to preserve the issue on appeal. Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1118, 42 Pa. C.S.A. In fact, appellant’s counsel was reluctant to motion the court for a mistrial. N.T. 7/19/89 at 113.
. Reviewing the victim’s testimony, we find the following discussions:
Q. (by the district attorney)
Okay. And at that time did you tell anyone about this?
A. (by the victim)
No, I didn’t.
Q. And I’m going to ask you why not?
A. Because I was too scared.
N.T. 7/17/89 at 30. This was the only reason D.R. gave to explain her delay in complaining about the sexual assaults. Subsequently, on cross-examination, D.R. testified that, as a result of a boy at her school exposing himself to her, she became traumatized and then told various school officials about her uncle’s sexual assault.
Q. (by the defense attorney)
At the [preliminary] hearing you testified that that was September 12th that he had been exposing himself, had this Dana exposed himself to you?
A. (by the victim)
Yes.
Q. Okay. And you said that that was so traumatic that that brought [out] everything that had happened from June of ’87 until June of '88 involving your uncle, is that correct?
A. Yes.
N.T. 7/17/89 at 62-63.