In a jury trial, defendant Theodore Biggs was convicted of rape, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121, and incest, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4302. In this appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the rape charge. We agree and reverse the judgment of sentence on that charge.
In considering challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner.
Commonwealth v. Cropper,
The jury found the defendant guilty on Count 3 of the information, charging him with incest, and Count 2 of the information, charging rape by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reason *268 able resolution. It is clear that the two elements of the crime of incest, viz., intercourse with a person within the proscribed degree of relationship and knowledge of that relationship at the time of the intercourse, are proven by this record. We also find the record sufficient to prove two of the elements of the rape charge—that defendant had intercourse with Marion Biggs and that Marion Biggs was not his spouse. The third element of that crime was not proven, however, for there is no evidence that the intercourse was accomplished through threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.
The record clearly shows that defendant never used or threatened to use force in inducing his daughter to participate in sexual intercourse. Rather, he asserted a biblical basis for the intercourse and assured his daughter’s silence by threats, not of force, but of humiliation. Although this conduct is reprehensible, it is not the conduct proscribed by section 3121 of the Crimes Code, which forbids intercourse by threat of
forcible compulsion.
“The crux of the offense of rape is force and the lack of the victim’s consent.”
Commonwealth v. Williams,
We will therefore reverse the judgment of sentence on the rape charge. Moreover, although the conviction for incest is supported by the evidence, it is clear that the sentence imposed by the court may have been influenced by the sentence imposed for rape. We will therefore remand for resentencing on that charge.
See Commonwealth v. Lockhart,
Judgment of sentence for rape reversed, and defendant is ordered discharged on that count. Judgment of sentence for incest vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. Jurisdiction is relinquished.
