Court Opinion

ID: 9898606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 20:10:55.062306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.970466
License: Public Domain

J-A13001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: K.A.W., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: K.A.W., A MINOR                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 973 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered June 2, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-22-JV-0000375-2020

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: NOVEMBER 14, 2023

       I respectfully dissent.       The trial court, sitting as finder of fact in

Appellant’s adjudication hearing, found the evidence sufficient to establish

that the thirteen-year-old adolescent boy intended to touch the six-year-old

female victim’s genitalia for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in himself.

According to the victim, Appellant was playing a video game with siblings in

his bedroom when he positioned himself behind her and reached around to

touch her genitalia over her clothing, stopping only when she said she was

going to tell on him.       N.T., 10/13/21, at 8-9.    Though apparently of brief

duration, the touching was of significant enough degree to cause the victim’s

genitalia to start itching. N.T. at 9.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13001-23

      When viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict

winner, the evidence sufficed to       support Appellant’s adjudication of

delinquency.   The indecent assault statute at 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126(a)(7)

proscribes “indecent contact”, which term is defined at Section 3101 of the

Crimes Code as “[a]ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the

person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person.”

18 Pa.C.S. § 3101 (emphasis added). Given the Appellant’s age, the manner

in which he secured the victim from behind, the direct touching of the victim’s

genitalia, and the victim’s report that she endured genital itching for some

time afterward, the trial court’s determination that he acted with proscribed

intent was supported by sufficient evidence. Accordingly, I dissent.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 11/14/2023

                                     -2-