Court Opinion

ID: 9763458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:45:47.199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:43.746864
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Jacobs, J.,
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of three counts of corrupting the morals of a minor. The only argument raised on appeal is whether the lower court erred in its *121charge on corrupting the morals of a minor. We need not reach the merits of that issue because we hold that the issue was not properly raised in the court below.
The three indictments charging appellant with corrupting the morals of a minor set forth that the crime was committed by appellant’s having sexual intercourse with each of three minors. However, the notes of testimony reveal that the trial judge did not instruct the jury that the corrupting in this case had to be done by the act of sexual intercourse as required by the indictments but only instructed them as to the statutory definition of corrupting the morals of a minor: “Whoever, being of the age of 18 years and upwards, by any act corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any child under the age of 18 years, or who aids, abets, entices or encourages any such child in the commission of any crime, or who knowingly assists or encourages such child in violating his or her parole or any order of court, is guilty of a misdemeanor .. ,”1
After the trial judge completed his charge to the jury the following exchange took place in chambers:
“THE COURT: Have you any exception to the charge, counsel?
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Not so much exceptions, Your Honor, as much as a charge of corrupting to the delinquency of a minor. I believe the bills of indictment specify the acts of intercourse as being the acts which tend to corrupt.
“THE COURT: But the statute as I read it is word for word.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL] : I know. But in a general background this family is such I wonder if they would find him guilty of corrupting as by the family.
*122“THE COURT: I don’t think so....”
After considering another of defense counsel’s points regarding the charge, the court asked counsel: “Are you satisfied that all your points were covered?” Appellant’s counsel replied: “I am, your Honor, yes;” and then the court stated: “All right. Then note on the record that there is no exception as to any point being uncovered.”
It is clear from the foregoing that at the time of trial appellant neither excepted to the instruction of the court nor did he request the court to specifically instruct the jury that the corrupting had to be done by the act of sexual intercourse. While defense counsel may have been troubled by the charge on corrupting, he chose to acquiesce in the trial court’s decision that a general charge on the crime was adequate. We construe defense counsel’s expression of satisfaction regarding the charge of the trial court as a withdrawal of any earlier objection. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 450 Pa. 575, 301 A.2d 632 (1973). Only those issues properly raised in the court below may be reviewed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974).
Judgment affirmed.

. Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, §532, as amended, 18 P.S. §4532, superseded by Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, §1, eff. June 6, 1973, as amended, Act of Nov. 28, 1973, P.L. 341, No. 117, §1, 18 Pa.C.S. §3125 (Supp. 1974-75).