J-S35022-15

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: R.C., A MINOR

No. 2555 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Dispositional Order of May 13, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-09-JV-0000090-2014

BEFORE: MUNDY, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2015

Appellant, R.C., appeals from an order of disposition entered on May 

13, 2014 in the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks 

County. We affirm.

The Commonwealth charged Appellant with indecent assault1and 

harassment2following a school bus encounter that occurred between 

Appellant and a juvenile female high school student (Victim) on January 15, 

2014. The case proceeded to an adversary hearing on March 21, 2014, after 

which the trial court adjudicated Appellant delinquent on both charges. 

Following a dispositional hearing on May 13, 2014, the court committed 

Appellant to the George Junior Diagnostic Unit. On May 21, 2014, Appellant 

filed a motion to modify and reconsider disposition, which the court denied 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4).
J-S35022-15

- 2 -

after a hearing on July 28, 2014. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 

August 22, 2014. Thereafter, on September 15, 2014 and pursuant to order 

of court, Appellant filed his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. The trial court issued its Rule 1925 opinion on 

October 2, 2014.

Appellant raises two questions for our review:

Was the evidence sufficient to adjudicate [Appellant] delinquent 

of indecent assault?

Was the evidence sufficient to adjudicate [Appellant] delinquent 

of harassment?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (complete capitalization omitted).

We review Appellant’s sufficiency challenges under a familiar standard 

of review:

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, we 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 
J-S35022-15

- 3 -

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.

In re M.J.H., 988 A.2d 694, 696-697 (Pa. Super. 2010).

Appellant’s first issue raises a two-part challenge to the sufficiency of 

the Commonwealth’s evidence supporting his adjudication for indecent 

assault. First, Appellant claims that, “[t]here was no evidence presented 

that Appellant’s hand[,] or any other body part, touched an ‘intimate area.’” 

Appellant’s Brief at 9. Next, Appellant asserts that there was no evidence 

showing that his actions were taken for purposes of sexual gratification. 

These claims fail.

The Crimes Code defines the offense of indecent assault as follows:

§ 3126. Indecent assault

(a) Offense defined.—A person who has indecent contact with 

the complainant or causes the complainant to have indecent 

contact with the person is guilty of indecent assault if:

(1) the person does so without the complainant's consent.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). Section 3101 defines indecent contact as “[a]ny 

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

of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in either person.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 3101.

The separate crime of indecent assault was established because 

of a concern for the outrage, disgust, and shame engendered in 

the victim rather than because of physical injury to the victim. 
J-S35022-15

- 4 -

Due to the nature of the offenses sought to be proscribed by the 

indecent assault statute, and the range of conduct proscribed, 

the statutory language does not and could not specify each 

prohibited act.

Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 153 (Pa. Super. 2012).

In adjudicating Appellant delinquent on the charge of indecent assault, 

the trial court made the following findings of fact, which find ample support 

in the record:

In the instant matter, [Victim,] a juvenile female high school 

student[,] was repeatedly confronted by [Appellant], a male high 

school student in the same school while both were passengers 

on the school bus. [Appellant] followed [Victim] from seat to 

seat and with [Victim] sitting next to the window and [Appellant] 

on the aisle seat, [Appellant] solicited oral sex from [her]. When 

she refused, [Appellant] proceeded to place his right hand up 

[Victim’s] shirt moving towards her breasts. She forcefully 

removed his hand and told him that she would punch him in the 

face if he tried that again. He then put both of his hands up her 

shirt and [attempted to push] his hands under her bra. She 

again forcefully removed his hands and told [Appellant] not to 

touch her. [Appellant] continued and this time put his left hand 

on her thigh and again she removed his hand and [] told him not 

to touch her. [Appellant persisted, placing his hand once again 

on Victim’s thigh and sliding it higher on her leg in an effort to 

touch her intimate area. Victim] wrenched [Appellant’s] hand 

away and immediately exited the bus.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/2/14, at 4.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 

we have little difficulty in concluding that the Commonwealth proved all of 

the requisite elements of indecent assault, including unwelcomed contact 

made for purposes of sexual gratification, beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

e.g. Commonwealth v. Ricco, 650 A.2d 1084, 1086 (Pa. Super. 1994) 
J-S35022-15

- 5 -

(Commonwealth need not establish “skin to skin” contact to sustain 

conviction for indecent assault). Appellant’s initial claim merits no relief.

In his second claim, Appellant maintains that the evidence introduced 

by the Commonwealth was insufficient to prove harassment beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Specifically, Appellant maintains that while Victim 

testified as to Appellant’s conduct, there was no testimony regarding “words, 

language, drawings, or caricatures” and, hence, no proof of communication 

proscribed under the harassments statute. Appellant’s Brief at 10.

This claim is waived. Appellant’s September 15, 2014 concise 

statement alleged that, “[t]he evidence was insufficient to adjudicate 

[Appellant] delinquent of harassment in that there was no evidence that 

Appellant acted with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm [Victim].” 

Concise Statement, 9/15/14, at 2. Since Appellant’s concise statement 

alleged lack of intent, not the Commonwealth’s failure to prove a prohibited 

communication, he has waived appellate review of his second claim.3 

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (failure to include claims 

____________________________________________

3

The statute under which Appellant was convicted states as follows: “A 

person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy 

or alarm another, the person: ... (4) communicates to or about such other 

person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, 

drawings or caricatures[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4). Under the statute, 

the actor’s intent is clearly a distinct issue from the nature of his alleged 

communications.
J-S35022-15

- 6 -

in court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver of claims on 

appeal).

Order of disposition affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/13/2015