J-S45011-18

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.E., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: S.E., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1999 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Dispositional Order November 1, 2017

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-JV-0000457-2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., MUSMANNO, J., and PLATT*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 26, 2018

S.E., a minor, appeals from the Dispositional Order following his 

adjudication of delinquency for simple assault and robbery. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 2701(a)(1), 3701(a)(1)(iv). We affirm.

On February 8, 2017, Kassoum Yameogo (“Yameogo”) was walking to 

the store after performing property work on Derry Street in Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. On Yameogo’s walk, a group of young boys, including S.E. and 

A.B., approached Yameogo. As S.E. moved closer to Yameogo, one boy struck

Yameogo from behind. An additional fifteen people appeared from the 

alleyway and repeatedly struck Yameogo. During the melee, Yameogo heard 

someone yell, “get the money.” As Yameogo reached for his phone to call the 

police, he accidentally dropped his phone case on the ground. The attackers 

grabbed the phone case, believing the phone case to be Yameogo’s phone. 

Upon realizing that Yameogo dropped his phone case and not his phone, the 
J-S45011-18

- 2 -

attackers threw the phone case back on the ground. At that time, Yameogo 

bit A.B. on the leg. Thereafter, the attackers fled the scene as police officers

arrived. Nothing was stolen from Yameogo, and the attack left Yameogo with 

a split lip, scrapes, and contusions. The officers stopped a group of juvenile

males after the incident and identified A.B. Subsequently, A.B. identified S.E. 

as one of the juveniles that attacked Yameogo. 

On June 28, 2017, a delinquency Petition was filed alleging that S.E. 

committed the delinquent acts of simple assault, robbery, conspiracy (simple 

assault), and conspiracy (robbery). On August 31, 2017, the juvenile court 

adjudicated S.E. delinquent of simple assault and robbery, but found that the 

two counts of conspiracy were not substantiated. Following a dispositional 

hearing, the juvenile court placed S.E. on formal probation and ordered him 

to perform twenty-five hours of community service. S.E. filed a timely PostDispositional Motion, which the juvenile court denied. S.E. filed a timely 

Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Concise Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

On appeal, S.E. raises the following questions for our review:

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to 

sustain the adjudication of delinquency for simple assault [and] 

robbery...?

2. Did the trial court err when it denied [S.E.’s] motion for a new 

adjudication hearing based on the adjudication of delinquency 

was against the weight of the evidence?

Brief for Appellant at 8 (capitalization omitted).
J-S45011-18

- 3 -

In his first claim, S.E. argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

support the adjudication of delinquency for simple assault and robbery. Id.

at 14-17. S.E. claims that Yameogo could not identify who delivered the 

strikes during the incident or who reached for his phone case. Id. at 14, 17.

S.E. contends that Yameogo’s and A.B.’s testimony did not establish that he 

caused bodily injury to Yameogo. Id. at 14-15. S.E. also contends that the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that S.E. had the intent to take anything 

from Yameogo. Id. at 15-17. 

We apply the following standard of review when examining a challenge 

to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adjudication of delinquency:

When a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a 

crime if committed by an adult, the Commonwealth must establish 

the elements of the crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 

following an adjudication of delinquency, the appellate court must 

review the entire record and view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth. In determining whether the 

Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden 

of proof, the test to be applied is whether, viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all 

reasonable inferences therefrom, there is sufficient evidence to 

find every element of the crime charged. The Commonwealth may 

sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond 

a reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial evidence. 

The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth 

need not be absolutely incompatible with a defendant’s innocence. 

Questions of doubt are for the hearing judge, unless the evidence 

is so weak that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be 

drawn from the combined circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth. The finder of fact is free to believe some, all, or 

none of the evidence presented.
J-S45011-18

- 4 -

In the Interest of P.S., 158 A.3d 643, 650 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted). 

The Crimes Code defines simple assault as an “attempt[] to cause or 

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly [cause] bodily injury to another.” 18 Pa.

C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Bodily injury is the “[i]mpairment of physical condition 

or substantial pain.” Id. § 2301. 

“A person is guilty of robbery if, in course of committing a theft, he ... 

inflicts bodily injury upon another or threatens another with or intentionally 

puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” Id. § 3701(a)(1)(iv). 

“An act shall be deemed ‘in the course of committing a theft’ if it occurs in an 

attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission.” Id.

§ 3701(a)(2).

Here, Yameogo testified that on February 8, 2017, several young boys

repeatedly punched him while on his walk to the store. See N.T., 8/28/17,

at 14-20, 27-31. Yameogo testified that during the attack, he overheard 

someone yell “get the money.” Id. at 18, 30. Yameogo also testified that,

during the attack, one of the juveniles grabbed Yameogo’s phone case off the 

ground, believing the phone case to be his phone. Id. at 18-19, 32. At this 

point, Yameogo bit A.B. on the leg. Id. at 19-20. Yameogo identified S.E. as 

one of the assailants. Id. at 23. After the attack, Yameogo had a split lip, 

scrapes and contusions, and it took him a month to recover from the injuries. 

Id. at 20-21, 32-33. 
J-S45011-18

- 5 -

A.B. testified that he was at the scene of the incident. Id. at 36-57. 

A.B. testified that S.E. approached Yameogo and struck him several times. 

Id. at 36-39, 46-48, 50-53, 56. A.B. testified that he heard someone yell, 

“he owe [sic] you money,” and there was an attempt to take his phone. Id.

at 37, 40, 54-55. Additionally, A.B. confirmed that Yameogo bit him on the 

leg. Id. at 36-37. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, we conclude that the 

evidence supports S.E.’s adjudication of delinquency for simple assault and 

robbery. Indeed, Yameogo and A.B. identified S.E. as one of the assailants. 

Further, S.E. repeatedly punched Yameogo while attempting to take his phone 

case. Thus, S.E.’s first claim is without merit. 

In his second claim, S.E. argues that the adjudication of delinquency for 

simple assault and battery was against the weight of the evidence. Brief for 

Appellant at 17-19. S.E. contends that the juvenile court gave improper 

weight to Yameogo’s and A.B.’s testimony. Id. S.E. further contends that 

A.B. was not found credible at another juvenile co-defendant’s adjudicatory 

hearing related to this incident. Id. at 18. 

When challenging the weight of evidence supporting an adjudication of 

delinquency, this Court employs a well-settled standard of review:

[W]e may only reverse the [juvenile] court’s [adjudication of 

delinquency] if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s

sense of justice. Moreover, where the [] court has ruled on the 

weight claim below, an appellate court's role is not to consider the 
J-S45011-18

- 6 -

underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight 

of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether 

the [juvenile] court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the 

weight claim.

Hence, a [juvenile] court’s denial of a weight claim is the least 

assailable of its rulings. Conflicts in the evidence and 

contradictions in the testimony of any witnesses are for the fact 

finder to resolve....

In the Interest of J.M., 89 A.3d 688, 692 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation 

omitted).

Here, the juvenile court found Yameogo’s and A.B.’s identification of S.E. 

as the perpetrator to be credible. See Juvenile Court Opinion, 2/21/18, at 8; 

see also id. (noting that while A.B. attempted to downplay his involvement, 

his identification of S.E. was credible). Further, the juvenile court was free to 

resolve any conflicts or contradictions in the testimony. See In the Interest 

of J.M., 89 A.3d at 692. Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion 

in denying S.E.’s weight of the evidence claim. 

Dispositional Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/26/2018