J-A17009-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.H., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.H., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2339 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered July 16, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-JV-0002187-2017

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2019

R.H., a minor, appeals from the July 16, 2018 dispositional order 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his 

adjudication of delinquency for indecent assault, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1), 

and harassment, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). In this appeal, R.H. presents a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. After careful review, we affirm.

At Strawberry Mansion High School in Philadelphia, PA, R.H., a 16-year 

old student, abruptly left his English class during an exam and without 

permission. Victim, a first-year teacher, notified the school’s administration 

that R.H. left her classroom. 

Shortly thereafter, R.H. attempted to reenter the classroom and Victim 

informed him that he was not allowed to return to class. Disobeying her 

instruction, R.H. physically forced his way into the classroom by shoving 

Victim away from the door. Once inside, he circled the classroom’s perimeter
J-A17009-19

- 2 -

for a short period. He then proceeded to the front of the classroom, near the 

door, to where Victim was standing. Victim was holding a clipboard away from 

her body at chest level. Before leaving the classroom, R.H. approached Victim 

and reached his hand underneath her clipboard, touching the right side of her 

breast for approximately two seconds.

R.H. then left the classroom. Victim closed the door behind R.H. as he 

exited. Thereafter, Victim told a nearby staff member that R.H. touched her 

inappropriately.

R.H. was arrested and charged with indecent assault and harassment.

At the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, the trial court, acting as the 

fact-finder, adjudicated R.H. delinquent for harassment and indecent assault. 

After a dispositional hearing, the trial court entered an order placing R.H. at 

the Glen Mills School for Boys. This timely appeal followed.

R.H.’s sole challenge on appeal is to the sufficiency of the evidence 

underlying his conviction for indecent assault. R.H. argues that the touching 

here, although involving Victim’s breast, lacked a sexual component. See 

Appellant’s Brief, at 7. He argues that his impertinent act was done out of 

defiance, rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification. See id. As such, 

R.H. concludes that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his adjudication 

for indecent assault, and therefore the judgment should be reversed. See id., 

at 10. We disagree.

Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

is to determine whether, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict 
J-A17009-19

- 3 -

winner, the evidence at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom are 

sufficient for the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150, 152 (Pa. 

Super. 2003). “The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every 

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence.” Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657, 661 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

“The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need 

not preclude every possibility of innocence.” Id. (citation omitted). Any doubt 

raised as to the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the trier of fact. See id. 

“As an appellate court, we do not assess credibility nor do we assign weight 

to any of the testimony of record.” Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 

581, 584 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Therefore, we will not disturb 

the verdict “unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter 

of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.” 

Bruce, 916 A.2d at 661 (citation omitted). Furthermore, a mere conflict in 

the testimony of the witness does not render the evidence insufficient because 

it is within the province of the fact finder to determine the weight to be given 

to the testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. See 

Commonwealth v. Baskerville, 681 A.2d 195, 200 (Pa. Super. 1996). 

To sustain a conviction for indecent assault, the Commonwealth must 

prove that R.H. had “indecent contact with the [Victim] . . . without [] [her] 

consent.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). Indecent contact is defined as “[a]ny 
J-A17009-19

- 4 -

touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of 

arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3101.

Here, we discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that R.H. was 

delinquent of indecent assault. Based on the certified record, it is evident that 

R.H. had non-consensual contact with Victim’s right breast. See N.T., Hearing, 

03/14/18, at 9-10. Moreover, the evidence supports the trial court’s 

conclusion that R.H. touched Victim’s breast to arouse sexual gratification 

because he targeted an intimate part of her body. See Trial Court Opinion, 

10/9/18, at 3. The evidence supports an inference that R.H. intentionally 

targeted an intimate part of the victim, as R.H. had to reach around a clipboard 

to touch the Victim’s breast. See N.T., Hearing, 3/14/18, at 11. 

While R.H.’s interpretation of the evidence is not inherently 

unreasonable, the court, sitting as fact-finder, was free to find otherwise. See 

Commonwealth v. McClintic, 851 A.2d 214 (Pa.Super. 2004), rev’d on 

other grounds, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006) (holding that a burglar’s intentional 

grab and pinch of a victim’s breast was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude 

the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification). Therefore, we 

conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain the order adjudicating R.H.

delinquent.

Order affirmed. 
J-A17009-19

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/19/19