J-S07018-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DAVID ADAMS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2061 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 20, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012394-2013

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

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 02, 2018

David Adams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his conviction for 

unlawful contact with a minor (sexual offenses). Adams contends that the

Commonwealth introduced insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We 

affirm. 

On September 5, 2013, Appellant was charged with numerous offenses 

stemming from allegations of sexual abuse by his juvenile niece, C.A. 

Specifically, C.A. alleged that Appellant raped her on three separate occasions 

in 2012. C.A. was just ten years old in 2012. 
J-S07018-18

- 2 -

On January 20, 2016, Appellant proceeded to trial on the charges of 

rape of a child and unlawful communication with a minor.1 Following the 

presentation of evidence, including the testimony of C.A., the jury convicted 

Appellant of unlawful contact with a minor (sexual offenses).

2 The trial court 

sentenced Appellant to six to fourteen years’ imprisonment. This timely appeal 

follows. 

Appellant’s sole challenge on appeal is to the sufficiency of the evidence 

underlying his conviction. Specifically, Appellant contends the evidence was 

insufficient as “there [was] a lengthy period of time between the alleged 

incident and any disclosure by the complainant and the details of the alleged 

incident [by complainant] were vague[.]”Appellant’s Brief, at 3 (capitalization 

omitted). However, neither arguments go to sufficiency of the evidence. These 

are weight of the evidence claims. See Commonwealth v. Snoke, 580 A.2d 

295, 298 (Pa. Super. 1990) (finding the timing of a complaint of sexual abuse 

is a factor bearing upon the credibility of the witness); see also 

Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1055 (Pa. Super. 2011) (claims 

directed entirely at the credibility of a witness challenge the weight, not the 

sufficiency, of evidence). As Appellant has not properly raised a weight claim 

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth withdrew all other charges against Appellant prior to 

trial. See N.T., Trial, 1/27/17, at 5. 

2 The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the rape of a child 

charge. 
J-S07018-18

- 3 -

on appeal, these specific arguments are waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-

(3).

Appellant, however, does purport to challenge the sufficiency of the 

evidence through his assertion that the lack of physical evidence defeats his 

conviction.3 See Appellant’s Brief, at 3, 13-14. 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 winner, the evidence at trial 

and all reasonable inferences therefrom are sufficient for the trier of fact to 

find that each element of the crimes charged is established 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).

“[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need 

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

raised as to the accused’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact-finder. 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 

____________________________________________

3 To the extent Appellant is attempting to argue that the lack of physical 

evidence weakens the Commonwealth’s case, this claim goes to the weight of 

the evidence, rather than the sufficiency. As discussed above, Appellant failed 

to preserve any challenges to the weight of the evidence. 
J-S07018-18

- 4 -

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).

An individual commits unlawful contact with a minor if “he is 

intentionally in contact with a minor ... for the purpose of engaging in activity 

prohibited under Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses).” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6318(a)(1). Despite Appellant’s assertion to the contrary, this crime does not 

require that the Commonwealth present any physical evidence of the 

underlying sexual offense in order to sustain a conviction. This claim is utterly 

frivolous. As Appellant does not challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence 

relating to any actual element of this offense, his sufficiency claim fails. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/2/18