Court Opinion

ID: 9727794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:30.143275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:42.964825
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with Judge Spaeth that appellant’s conduct did rise to the level of threat of forcible compulsion. I write separately to add that I would define threat of forcible compulsion to include any threat which overbears the will of a person of reasonable resolution under the circumstances of the situation.
I disagree with Judge Spaeth that the case must be remanded for a new trial. The charge to the jury was in accordance with Pennsylvania Standard Jury Instructions and a specific charge as to the definition of forcible compulsion was not requested by appellant. Indeed, appellant would not have ever requested an instruction which encompassed a definition beyond purely physical compulsion. Since the jury found appellant guilty and today a majority of our court finds the evidence sufficient to support this verdict, a fortiori the jury would have found appellant guilty had it had the benefit of our definition of forcible compulsion. A new trial in such a case is simply not required.