The defendant was found guilty of forcible rape of a child (G. L. c. 265, § 22A) and indecent assault and battery upon two children under the age of fоurteen (G. L. c. 265, § 13B) by a jury in the Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty on these charges because the Commonwealth’s case did not rest on a theory of joint venture but on proof that he had forced the victims to engage in sexual activity with a third party. The defendant also claims that the judge’s instructions to the jury *361 were erroneous because they did not address the defendant’s culpability based on a theory of vicarious liability. We affirm the convictions.
We summarize the evidence presented by the Commonwealth. The defendant went to live with his girlfriend and her two sons, ages ten and twelve, in July, 1989. Shortly after he mоved in, the defendant began to engage in a recurring pattern of physical abuse of his girlfriend and her two children. He would take the bоys, who weighed forty-seven and forty-six pounds, and slam them head first onto the floor. If their mother attempted to intervene, he would order hеr out of the way or hit her. In addition to the physical abuse, the defendant forced the boys to engage in sexual activity with their mother. With threats of physical injury to the mother and her sons, the defendant made the children fondle their mother’s breasts and on one occasion, while constraining the mother, he forced the youngest son to perform cunnilingus on her.
The defendant argues, absent proof of a joint venture with the children’s mother, he cannot be convicted of these crimes or, if he can be convicted, that he has been deprived of due process because he did not receive fair notice that his conduct was proscribed by G. L. c. 265, § 22A (forcible rape of a child), and G. L. c. 265, § 13B (indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen). The defendant bases his argument on our holding in
Commonwealth
v.
Guy,
While it is true that the defendants in Guy were tried under a theory of joint venture, the principal issue in that case was whether the defendants could be found guilty of rape where the victim was forced to perform the acts of un *362 natural sexual intercourse upon consenting third parties. There we determined that the rape statute did not require that the unnatural sexual intercourse be performed or committed upon the victim named in the indictment or that the sexual contact involve penetration of the victim by the рerpetrator. Id. at 786. We concluded that the “broad language of G. L. c. 265, § 22(a), . . . [is] designed to punish the outrage of compelled sеx, [and] a person who forces a victim to perform cunnilingus on someone should be guilty of rape.” Id. at 787.
We see no reason to distinguish the defendant’s conduct in this case from that of the defendants in
Guy
simply because he was not engaged in a joint venture with the third party. The rеsult is the same, for the essence of the offense “is the outrage of compelled sex.”
Commonwealth
v.
Guy,
*363
To hold the defendant culpable under these statutes does not deprive him of due prоcess of law. “A penal statute must ‘define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited ....’”
Commonwealth
v.
Williams,
There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that the trial judge’s instructions were erroneous because they did not address thе defendant’s guilt based on a theory of vicarious liability. The judge’s instructions were predicated on our holding in Commonwealth v. Guy, supra. In the charge on forciblе rape of a child, the judge told the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable dоubt that the child acted at the direction of the defendant and was compelled to engage in unnatural sexual intercourse with his mоther either by force or by threat of bodily injury from the defendant. In the charge on indecent assault and battery, the judge informed the jury that thе contact must be intentional and that the child must be under fourteen. He also defined what constitutes indecent or offensive conduсt and told the jury that the perpetrator need not himself perform the indecent touching if he directs or commands the victim to touсh a third person in a manner *364 that would be offensive. We conclude these instructions were adequate.
Even if they were not, we notе that at trial the defendant did not object to the absence of a vicarious liability instruction. Rather, his objection was based on the lack of a joint venture instruction. As a result, our review would be limited to whether the judge’s instructions created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Commonwealth
v.
O’Connor,
Judgments affirmed.