J-S56033-16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.J.D., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: J.J.D.

No. 200 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Dispositional Order November 25, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-36-JV-0000374-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 19, 2016

J.J.D. (“Appellant”) appeals from the dispositional order entered by the 

Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Juvenile Division, after the 

court adjudicated Appellant delinquent for committing an act that would 

constitute theft by unlawful taking if he were an adult. Appellant presents a 

challenge to the weight of the evidence centered on a discrepancy between 

the arresting officer’s written report and his oral testimony. We affirm.

The lower court aptly summarizes the factual and procedural history as 

follows:

At the time of the adjudicatory hearing, [Appellant] was 18 years 

old. On or about May 6, 2015, the Victim and [Appellant] were 

at the park. According to the Victim, [Appellant] was “doing 

drugs,” and, because she did not want to be involved with that 

activity, she decided to go home. Uninvited, [Appellant] 

followed her home and into her residence despite her telling him 

that she did not want him there. Upon entering her home, 

[Appellant] went straight to the bathroom and locked the door 
J-S56033-16

- 2 -

where the Victim believes he continued to use drugs. 

[Appellant] then exited the bathroom and laid on the living room 

floor. At this point, the Victim said she became scared that he 

was dying and called 911; however, she hung up before 

speaking to anyone. 911 dispatch then called the Victim’s home, 

but she did not answer the phone out of fear. Meanwhile, 

[Appellant] entered and left the bathroom several times. The 

Victim then grabbed the phone and locked herself in her 

bedroom where she proceeded to call her mother. Shortly 

thereafter, her father called her, and she told him that she was 

scared and that [Appellant] would not leave the house. 

Approximately 5 to 10 minutes later, she received a phone call 

and was told that [Appellant] was outside with police officers and 

that she was safe. A police officer then approached her as she 

exited the house[,] handed her a Samsung Galaxy 3 Tablet, and 

asked “is this yours.” She indicated that it was, and the officer 

informed her that he had retrieved it from [Appellant]. She in 

turn indicated that [Appellant] did not have permission to take 

her tablet. (Adjudication, N.T. 10/5/16 at 5-13).

Officer Jesse James Blank of the Southern Regional Police 

Department testified that he was dispatched to the Victim’s 

address for a 911 hang-up call. Upon his arrival approximately 

10 minutes later, he encountered [Appellant] exiting the home 

via the front door. He further testified that [Appellant], who was 

breathing heavily, indicated that this was the home of his 

girlfriend and that they were fighting. Officer Blank noticed a 

bulge at [Appellant’s] right hip, and, being concerned that it 

might be a weapon, the Officer asked him to lift his shirt, 

revealing the Victim’s Samsung Galaxy 3 Tablet. Upon learning 

from the Victim that [Appellant] did not have permission to take 

her tablet, Officer Blank charged [Appellant] with one count [of] 

Theft by Unlawful Taking (Id. at 14-17), and, following the 

adjudicatory hearing held on October 8, 2015, he was 

adjudicated delinquent of the offense. (Id. at 27).

***

On cross-examination, counsel for [Appellant] questioned Officer 

Blank regarding the fact that he did not specifically indicate in 

his report that he had asked [Appellant] to lift his shirt. The 

officer acknowledged this fact, along with the fact that his report 

indicated that [Appellant] lifted his shirt, reached for the tablet 

and gave it to the officer. He also acknowledges that [Appellant] 
J-S56033-16

- 3 -

stated that “his girlfriend had given it to him to hold on to.” (Id. 

at 19).

***

[The court adjudicated Appellant delinquent and, at a disposition 

hearing held on November 25, 2015, issued an order directing 

Appellant] to complete the Youth Advocate Program, participate 

in drug and alcohol services, complete 30 hours of community 

service, participate in the Center for Community Peacemaking 

program and pay court costs. (Disposition Order, 11/25/15). 

Lower Court Opinion, filed March 29, 2016 at 1-3.

Appellant presents one question for our review in this timely appeal:

WAS THE [JUVENILE] COURT’S FINDING THAT [APPELLANT] 

COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING 

AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE 

EVIDENCE SHOWED CONFLICTING ISSUES REGARDING INTENT, 

IN THAT THE OFFICER WROTE IN HIS REPORT THAT 

[APPELLANT] TURNED THE STOLEN ITEMS OVER TO HIM AS HE 

EXITED THE HOME BUT TESTIFIED THAT HE STOPPED 

[APPELLANT] AS HE EXITED THE HOME AND DISCOVERED 

[APPELLANT] WAS IN POSSESSION OF A STOLEN ITEM?

Appellant’s brief at 5.

Our review of a weight claim in an appeal from a juvenile adjudication 

is the same as our review of a challenge to the weight of the evidence in an 

appeal from a criminal conviction:

[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 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.
J-S56033-16

- 4 -

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 re J.M., 89 A.3d 688, 692 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal 

denied, 102 A.3d 986 (Pa. 2014).

Appellant assails the juvenile court’s ruling on his weight of the 

evidence claim filed in his post-dispositional motion because, he claims, the 

officer’s testimony that he directed Appellant to lift his shirt departed from 

his written report, which contained no reference to such a directive. This

variation between the officer’s written report and his testimony, Appellant 

maintains, undermined the officer’s credibility as a witness. We disagree. 

Though the written report did not state that the officer directed 

Appellant to lift his shirt to reveal what he was hiding underneath, it 

nevertheless stated that Appellant lifted his shirt in the officer’s presence, 

surrendered the tablet to the officer, and explained that the Victim, “his 

girlfriend,” had given it to him. It further stated that the Victim denied 

giving Appellant permission to take the tablet. Though not identically 

worded, the officer’s written report and testimony were substantially 

consistent in all meaningful respects and, importantly, not contradictory. It 

was, therefore, reasonable for the court to infer from the totality of the 

circumstances that the officer had encountered Appellant while Appellant 

was in the act of taking the Victim’s tablet without her permission. 

Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s denial 
J-S56033-16

- 5 -

of Appellant’s post-dispositional motion asserting that the weight of the 

evidence belied wrongful intent.

Order Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/19/2016