HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0172-2007
IN RE: K.A., A JUVENILE. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
BORN 02/16/93 : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CP-21-JV-172-2007
MEMORANDUM AND VERDICT
The juvenile in this case is charged with a number of sexual offenses. A determination of
guilt hearing was held on February 9, 2009, and the court took the testimony under advisement.
We now enter a verdict but are constrained to add an explanatory comment.
This case involves sexual contact between a twelve-year-old boy and three-year-old girl.
The boy was acting as a babysitter at the time. An element of most of the offenses in this case is
that the little girl was under the age of thirteen. Of note in this case is that the juvenile accused
also
was under the age of thirteen at the time of the offenses.
In order to be found delinquent, a child must be at least ten years old. A twelve-year-old
perpetrator is, himself, below the age which would make him a victim for the purpose of these
various sexual offenses. The question arises, therefore, as to whether or not the court can make a
determination of guilt with respect to these various offenses as to juveniles who are ten, eleven,
or twelve years old.
The question becomes particularly acute in light of the holding of the Superior Court in
Com. v. B.A.M., 806 A.2d 893 (Pa.Super. 2002). That case involved an eleven-year-old juvenile.
There, the Superior Court distinguished sexual offenses from other statutes and determined that
the eleven-year-old should not have been convicted. Specifically, the Court said that, where
criminality depends upon the victim being less than thirteen, the statutes were intended by the
older teenagers and adults
Legislature “to shield young children from sexual predation by .”
he accused in this case is not an “older teenager” let alone an adult. Thus, an argument could
be made that a twelve year old cannot be found guilty of the offenses before the court.
We, however, will give the Commonwealth the benefit of the doubt on this issue. The
B.A.M. case involved what ultimately proved to be consensual acts between two eleven-year-old
boys. This case is, of course, entirely different. We are satisfied that the language with respect
to “older teenagers” was dicta for the purpose of that case and we decline to apply it here. That
having been said, we will not discount the importance of K.A.’s age in fashioning an appropriate
disposition.
VERDICT
th
AND NOW, this 13 day of February, 2009, on Count 1 – Rape, Count 2 – Involuntary
Deviate Sexual Intercourse with a Child, and Count 4 – Aggravated Indecent Assault, we find
the juvenile GUILTY as charged. The remaining counts are DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT,
_______________________________
Kevin A. Hess, J.
Juvenile Probation Department
Jonathan Birbeck, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Ron Turo, Esquire
For the Juvenile
Victim Services
:rlm