No. 627 April Term 1978, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. 7605196.
Paul D. Boas, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Van der Voort, Spaeth and Watkins, JJ. Van der Voort, J., concurs in the result.
[ 273 Pa. Super. Page 29]
This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted appellant of one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,*fn1 two counts of corruption of minors,*fn2 and two counts of false imprisonment.*fn3 Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to justify a guilty verdict on the two counts of corruption of minors; that the information gave appellant improper notice of the charges against him;*fn4 and that the court erred in denying appellant's requested point for instructions on the charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
The evidence may be stated as follows: On July 2, 1976, two boys, Lisle, 15, and Joe, 14, were walking home from a country fair when appellant stopped his car to offer them a ride. The boys accepted. As they approached the area where they lived, they asked appellant to let them out, but he continued driving. Appellant told the boys that he had a .38 caliber gun and ordered them to pull down their pants and masturbate. Appellant touched the boys' genitals. Lisle was able to jump from the car, but appellant restrained
[ 273 Pa. Super. Page 30]
Joe. Appellant proceeded to a back road where he placed his mouth on Joe's penis three times.
The information charged appellant on seven counts: one count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, two counts of corruption of minors, two counts of indecent assault, and two counts of unlawful restraint. The first count of corruption of minors was based on the charge of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with Joe. The second count of corruption of minors was based on the charge of indecent assault of Lisle.*fn5 At trial, the judge dismissed the two counts of indecent assault, and reduced the charges of unlawful restraint to false imprisonment.
In testing the sufficiency of evidence, we first accept as true all the evidence upon which the finder of fact could have reached its verdict, and then, after giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence, we ask whether the evidence, and the inferences arising from it, are sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted. Commonwealth v. Williams, 468 Pa. 357, 365, 362 A.2d 244, 248 (1976); Commonwealth v. Carbonetto, 455 Pa. 93, 314 A.2d 304 (1974); Commonwealth v. Burton, 450 Pa. 532, 301 A.2d 599 (1973); Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 247 Pa. Super. 373, 372 A.2d 873 (1977).
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on the first ...