Court Opinion

ID: 9765978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:27:30.059578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:17.914675
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge.
The Commonwealth contends that the court erred in dismissing an indictment charging appellant with statutory rape 1 and corruption of a minor 2 even though the *117complaint was filed beyond the period allowed by § 3105 of the Crimes Code.3
The unfortunate facts of the instant case are set out in the able opinion by President Judge Thomas of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County: “[The victim] is the stepdaughter of [appellee] and if her testimony is believed, she had sexual relations with her stepfather at a motel on March 12, 1974, at a time when she was fifteen years of age. After the night in question, she attended school only a half day, left school and went to a girl friend’s house and related to girl friend and girl friend’s mother what had happened. The family minister was called and [the victim] related the accusation to the minister. The minister called the Defendant’s wife, (natural mother of [the victim]) and related in general terms [the victim’s] accusations. [The mother] asked the minister to inquire of [the victim] if she had sexual relations with her husband. [The victim] answered in the affirmative and the minister conveyed this answer to [her mother]. [The victim] requested she be allowed to go to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to live with an aunt and uncle and [the victim’s mother] approved the request since she was ‘having trouble with her anyway.’ [The victim] was transported to Lancaster by the minister and sometime later related what happened to aunt and uncle. Uncle went to see an attorney but nothing further was done. About six to eight weeks after she arrived in Lancaster, [the victim] wrote a letter to her mother spelling out the details of what had happened and expressing a belief that the same fate might befall her younger sister . . . who still remained in the household. [The victim’s mother] then called [the victim] and told her she was crazy and that she didn’t believe her. Both mother and daughter admit that at the time the event happened ‘they were not getting along.’
*118“We thus have the alleged sexual intercourse occurring on March 12, 1974; notice indirectly given to the mother on March 13,1974; notice to the aunt and uncle acting as foster parents or guardians probably around late March or early April, 1974; written notice to the mother, confirmed by oral telephone call, in April or May of 1974, but no prosecution until charges were filed by the Pennsylvania State Police on August 4, 1975.” 4
The lower court concluded that the delay in reporting the offense to the authorities by the victim’s mother was a bar to prosecution. It, therefore, quashed the indictment; and the Commonwealth brought this appeal.
Section 3105 of the Crimes Code provides that: “No prosecution may be instituted or maintained under this chapter [Chapter 31, Sexual Offenses] unless the alleged offense was brought to the notice of public authority within three months of its occurrence or, where the alleged victim was less than 16 years old or otherwise incompetent to make a complaint, within three months after a parent, guardian or other competent person specifically interested in the victim learns of the offense.” 5
It is clear from the record that the public authorities were not notified of the alleged offense until more than 15 months after the victim’s mother was aware of the crime. The Commonwealth asks that we interpret § 3105 to create an exception for those cases in which the parent *119is unwilling to prosecute either because he disbelieves the child victim or because he is not sufficiently interested in the child’s welfare to report the criminal offense against the child.
 As the court below correctly concluded, the drafters of § 3105 and of § 213.6(4) of the Model Penal Code, from which § 3105 was derived, did not envision the situation in which the minor victim makes a prompt outcry but the parents or other person specifically interested in the minor fail to act. Section 3105 embodies a legislative presumption that bona fide complaints of sexual misconduct will be made promptly and expresses the policy our courts should be shielded from stale or untimely complaints.6 The legislature did not provide an exception for later detection by the authorities in those situations when a parent or other person specifically interested in the child is reluctant to report the crime. Because the legislative intent is clear from the plain meaning of the words of the statute, we have no alternative but to apply it according to its terms.
There is no question that the offense was not reported to the authorities within the period provided by § 3105. We must, therefore, affirm the order of the lower court quashing the indictment.
Order affirmed.
*120SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion, in which PRICE, J., joins, as well as in the majority opinion.

. Act of 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1641, No. 344, § 1, eff. June 6, 197?; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3122.

. Act of 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1641, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973; 18 • Pa.C.S. § 3125.

. Act of 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1641, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973; 18 Pa.C.S. § 3105.

. In n. I of the lower court opinion, the circumstances surrounding the ultimate report of the crime to the authorities is explained: “Ironically, the incident came to the attention of the state police about February 23, 1975, when [the victim’s mother] made an assault complaint against her husband and indicated there mght be some involvement between her husband and [another daughter]. In June of 1975, [the other daughter] related to the state police that [her sister] had related to her that she had sexual relations with her stepfather. After a July 7, 1975 interview with [the victim] by Lancaster State Police, charges were filed by the local state police on August 4, 1975.”

. Section 3105 has recently been amended to eliminate the requirement of prompt reporting. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3105, supra, as amended May 18,1976, eff. in 30 days.

. Jarvis, Pennsylvania Crimes Code and Criminal Law § 3105 (1974):
“This section was derived from § 213.6(5) [§ 213.6(4)] of the Model Penal Code. The three months’ period was adopted with the idea that the possibility of pregnancy might change a participant in a sex act to a vindictive complainant. The commentary in Tentative Draft No. 4, at page 265, reads as follows:
“The possibility that pregnancy might change a willing participant in the sex act into a vindictive complainant, as well as the sound reasoning that one who has, in fact, been subjected to an act of violence, will not delay in bringing the offense to the attention of the authorities, are sufficient grounds for setting some time limit upon the right to complain. Likewise, the dangers of blackmail or psychopathy of the complainant make objective standards imperative.”