Opinion ID: 1474553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The test for evaluating claims based on the sufficiency of the evidence is: [W]hether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, there is sufficient evidence to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.. . . Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire trial record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. . . . Finally, the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. (citations omitted) Commonwealth v. Harper, 485 Pa. 572, 576-77, 403 A.2d 536, 538-39 (1979). Viewing the evidence in this light, the record reveals the following: Pamela Sue McMillan, the victim of the crimes in No. 44, became acquainted with the appellant when her family began camping at the Circle S Ranch on weekends in the summer. N.T. July 16 and 17, 1980 at 24, 66. In the summer of 1979, Pam was thirteen years old and had known the appellant for three years. Id. at 25, 63-64. One weekend in the summer of 1979, Pam's family came up to camp at the Circle S Ranch, and at appellant's suggestion, left Pam to help the appellant while his wife was in the hospital. [29] Pam was going to assist the appellant with household chores, and since appellant would not hear the telephone ringing if the hospital called during the night, Pam was to sleep on the couch by the telephone. (The appellant had hearing difficulties and wore a hearing aid). Id. at 27, 68. Pam's parents and brothers left on Sunday. On Sunday, Pam's friend, Joy Paucke, asked her grandmother if Pam could stay the night. Pam slept at Joy's house on Sunday night. Id. at 70. On Monday, Pam and Joy went with the appellant to help him cut hay. The appellant drove the tractor, and Pam and Joy took turns driving the pickup truck around to parts of the field in which the appellant was working. The back of the pickup, which was covered with a cap, contained an assortment of tools. Id. at 71-72, 79-80. When questioned if anything unusual happened that day at the hayfield, Pam responded that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Joy in the back of the pickup truck, and had told her to watch out for cars. Id. at 72. Pam was asked to explain what she meant by sexual intercourse, and after some hesitation and nervousness, was able to specify that a man got on top of a lady and put his penis in her sexual privates. Id. at 76-78. Pam stated that she could see into the open back of the pickup truck. Id. at 79. After the appellant had sexual intercourse with Joy, he asked Pam and she agreed to have sexual intercourse with the appellant. [30] Id. at 81. Pam got into the back of the pickup with appellant, he pulled her pants down, and then put his penis between her legs. Id. at 82-83. Pam testified that appellant's penis was touching her private place. Id. at 84. This episode lasted just a couple of minutes, and then the appellant put the tools back in the truck and they drove to the horse barn. Id. at 84-85. Monday night, Joy stayed at the Shirey residence, and Pam and Joy slept in the bunk room while the appellant slept in his own bedroom. Id. at 85. The next day, Tuesday, Pam and Joy again helped the appellant in the hayfield. Pam testified that there was a boy riding his motorcycle around in the area, and nothing unusual happened. Id. at 86-87. After haying, the appellant dropped Joy off at her home, and he and Pam continued to the Shirey residence. Id. at 87. That night following supper, Pam was in the bunk room and the appellant came in and asked her if she wanted to watch some movies. Id. at 88. The appellant set up the projector and showed her two films. The first film depicted a naked woman and two naked men. One man was on top of [the woman], and the other one was sucking her breasts, and then the two men switched positions. Id. at 88-90. The second film portrayed a naked man and a naked woman on a ladder. The naked couple then went into the bedroom and they were screwing. Id. at 90. Pam stated that she hadn't used any other word in court which meant the same thing as screwing, and she understood the term to mean that a man got on top of a lady and put his penis in the lady's private spot, and then the man went up and down and back and forth. Id. at 90-91. When the movies ended, the appellant tried to feel Pam's chest, and asked her if he could. Pam kept refusing, and finally appellant quit asking, and went to sleep in his own bedroom. Id. at 91-93. Nothing out of the ordinary happened on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. The appellant's wife had returned home on Thursday. Id. at 95. On Saturday night, while appellant's wife was sleeping, the appellant showed Pam a vibrator. Pam described it as a white thing that runs with batteries and indicated that it was ten to twelve inches long. Id. at 98. The Commonwealth introduced as Exhibit # 1 a white vibrator that the appellant had turned over to the police. Id. at 151. Pam recalled that the appellant had said it was for girls to use when they don't got their boyfriend or husband. Id. at 98. The appellant then put batteries in the vibrator and placed it on her legs. Id. at 99. Pam was wearing jeans. Id. at 100. Nothing else occurred that night. No untoward events ensued until Tuesday. The appellant took his wife to the hairdresser's, and then Pam went along with the appellant to work in the hayfield. The appellant tried to pull Pam's pants down, but she refused to let him do so. Id. at 100-101. On Thursday, Pam and Joy again accompanied the appellant to the hayfield. While they were there, the appellant had intercourse with [her] and Joy. Id. at 102. Pam related that while the appellant was on top of her, he told Joy to hold his penis. Appellant's penis was between Pam's legs and she testified that it was inside of me and that it hurt. Id. at 104-105. Pam told the appellant to get off of her, and he complied. Id. at 105. Pam's parents returned to the Circle S Ranch the next day, and she went home with them the following Sunday. On the basis of this evidence, the jury found the appellant guilty of statutory rape, indecent assault, and corruption of a minor. The appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for statutory rape and corruption of a minor. As to the sufficiency of the statutory rape conviction, the appellant points to the rule that to constitute the offense of rape, there must be penetration, however slight. Commonwealth v. Bowes, 166 Pa.Super. 625, 74 A.2d 795 (1950). Appellant then directs us to Pam's testimony regarding the first incident in the hayfield. While Pam stated that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her, she described his activity only as the placement of his penis between her legs touching her private place. N.T. July 16 and 17, 1980, at 81, 84. While we agree that this testimony did not substantiate penetration, appellant overlooks Pam's subsequent testimony regarding the last incident when appellant had Joy fondle his penis while he was on top of Pam: Q. Where was his [appellant's] penis exactly, Pam? A. Inside of me. Q. Inside of you? A. Yes. Q. Did it hurt you? A. Yes. This is clearly direct evidence of penetration, and it is a longstanding rule that with regard to the element of penetration, the testimony of one witness  the injured person  can be sufficient to sustain a conviction of rape. Johnson Appeal, 445 Pa. 270, 284 A.2d 780 (1971); Commonwealth v. Crider, 240 Pa.Super. 403, 361 A.2d 352 (1976). Appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the corruption of a minor conviction, relates to the language in which the corruption charge was couched. The information charged that the appellant corrupted or tended to corrupt the morals of the minor, Pamela Sue McMillan, by showing a child obscene literature, pictures, and two movies of naked men and women engaged in sexual intercourse or oral sex. At the conclusion of the evidence, the appellant moved for a directed verdict on this charge on the basis that the Commonwealth had failed to establish that the movies were obscene under the community standards of Potter County. N.T. July 16 and 17, 1980, at 257. As previously discussed, the burden enunciated in Commonwealth v. LaLonde, supra , involving the proof of community standards of obscenity, was overruled in 1974 by the case of Commonwealth v. Rogers, supra. See discussion infra at I. Appeal of Nos. 28 and 30, 5. Obscenity. This claim of error is without merit.