Com. v. Ruehling

• Decision Date: 27 February 1975
• Citation: 232 Pa.Super. 378,334 A.2d 702
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward RUEHLING, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 702

334 A.2d 702

232 Pa.Super. 378

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward RUEHLING, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 27, 1975.

Application for Allocatur Denied May 30, 1975.

John J. Dean, John H. Corbett, Jr., Pittsburgh, for appellant.

John J. Hickton, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

JACOBS, Judge:

Appellant presently challenges the sufficiency of evidence used to convict him of the crimes of kidnapping ¹ statutory rape, ² and indecent assault. ³ Before we consider these contentions it is necessary to carefully review the facts surrounding this appeal.

Plagued with an assortment of financial problems on the evening of August 30, 1973, appellant, a 35 year-old married man, attempted to forget them by visiting a local tavern. After drinking several beers and shots of whiskey, appellant drove to the Leslie Park Swimming Pool in the Lawrenceville section of Pittsburgh. There he observed several young people swimming in the pool even though it was late in the evening. One girl, the 15 year-old prosecutrix, attracted his interest. As she was leaving the pool area, appellant grabbed her and told her that he was a police officer and wanted to talk to her about drugs. The two proceeded to appellant's car. Once in the car, appellant displayed a gun and told the prosecutrix that she must go with him. Appellant then drove to an isolated area, some 30 miles from the place of abduction. After the car was parked, the prosecutrix resisted appellant's advances. A fight ensued and appellant dragged the prosecutrix from the car and beat her up. Appellant then pulled her pants down, pushed her to the ground, and got on top of her. The prosecutrix testified that she was forced to open her legs and felt a sharp pain in the area of her vagina. At the conclusion of these acts, appellant drove the prosecutrix to a phone booth where he dropped her off. The police soon picked up the prosecutrix at that location. Subsequently, the prosecutrix received medical care at a local hospital and a vaginal smear disclosed the presence of sperm. Appellant was arrested, charged, and convicted in a jury trial of several crimes including kidnapping, statutory rape and indecent assault. From his sentence of 4 to 12 years imprisonment, appellant has appealed.

Initially we must recognize that in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we accept the Commonwealth's evidence as true, including all reasonable inferences therefrom. Commonwealth v. Coe, 226 Pa.Super. 594, 323 A.2d 213 (1974).

Appellant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping. Under § 2901 of the Crimes Code, a person is guilty of kidnapping if:

'he unlawfully removes another a substantial distance under the circumstances from the place where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation, with any of the following intentions:

(2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter.'

Under the facts presently before us, we are convinced that there was sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty of kidnapping. Appellant claims that 30 miles cannot be considered a substantial distance under the statute. We disagree and find that appellant's actions in removing the prosecutrix from the company of her friends and transporting her a distance of 30 miles into the next county established the first element of the crime of kidnapping. Appellant's actions clearly show that he took the victim with the intention of raping her thus supplying the second element of the crime.

Appellant's next argument is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of statutory rape. Under § 3122 of the Crimes Code a person who is 16 years of age or older commits statutory rape 'when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person not his spouse who is less than 16 years of age.' In the instant case, the facts reveal that appellant was 35 years of age and the prosecutrix was 15 years of age; appellant pulled down the clothing of the prosecutrix, made her lie down and spread her legs; and the prosecutrix then felt a sharp pain in the area of her vagina. A vaginal smear taken at the hospital after this incident revealed the presence of sperm. Appellant complains that there was no direct evidence of penetration, and thus, sexual intercourse was not established. However, our Court has held that penetration may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Exler, 61 Pa.Super. 423 (1915). Considering the youth of the prosecutrix, the presence of sperm in her vagina, and taking all inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth we are satisfied that the crime of statutory rape was established.

Appellant's final argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of indecent assault. Under § 3126 of the Crimes Code a person is guilty of indecent assault when he 'has indecent contact with another not his spouse, or causes such other to have indecent contact with him . . . if: (1) he knows that the contact is offensive to the other person.' (The other provisions of the statute are not applicable under ...