No. 1188 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from Judgments of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 1251-1252 January, 1981.
John Packel, Chief, Appeals, Assistant Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
Rowley, Wieand and Popovich, JJ.
[ 316 Pa. Super. Page 154]
Thomas Robinson was tried by jury and found guilty of statutory rape*fn1 and corruption of a minor.*fn2 Post trial motions were denied, and appellant was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment. In this direct appeal from the judgments of sentence, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions because the Commonwealth failed to establish the exact dates upon which the offenses occurred. Robinson also argues that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the
[ 316 Pa. Super. Page 155]
victim to testify to alleged sexual acts with appellant on dates prior to those charged in the information. Finding appellant's arguments to be devoid of merit, we affirm the judgments of sentence.
"The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether accepting as true all of the evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Lovette, 498 Pa. 665, 669, 450 A.2d 975, 977 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1983). Accord: Commonwealth v. Lee, 460 Pa. 374, 377, 333 A.2d 773, 775 (1975); Commonwealth v. Miller, 303 Pa. Super. 504, 507, 450 A.2d 40, 41 (1982); Commonwealth v. Riquelmy, 303 Pa. Super. 403, 405, 449 A.2d 750, 751 (1982); Commonwealth v. Corish, 296 Pa. Super. 92, 94, 442 A.2d 311, 313 (1982). In making this evaluation, all evidence received by the fact finder must be considered, whether the trial court's rulings thereon were correct or incorrect. Commonwealth v. Lovette, supra 498 Pa. at 669, 450 A.2d at 977; Commonwealth v. Cohen, 489 Pa. 167, 177, 413 A.2d 1066, 1072 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 840, 101 S.Ct. 118, 66 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980); Commonwealth v. Corish, supra 296 Pa. Super. at 94-95, 442 A.2d at 313.
When so viewed, the evidence introduced at trial established the following facts: In 1976, the victim, Wanda F___, her younger sister, Willa, and her mother began sharing a home with appellant, the paramour of Wanda's mother. Wanda, then approximately 9 years of age,*fn3 treated appellant as her stepfather and called him "Pop." She testified that sometime in January of 1978 appellant informed her that she had contracted a venereal disease and required treatment for it. Wanda testified that appellant told her he had learned of her "illness" when he saw her
[ 316 Pa. Super. Page 156]
name on records in a medical center and assured her that he was a paramedic and could administer the treatments necessary to cure her "disease." Wanda testified that it was approximately on a weekly basis, beginning in January of 1978, that appellant inserted a syringe and other objects as well as his penis into her vagina on the pretense of treating her for venereal disease. In August, 1980, Wanda attended a course in sex education and learned that appellant had been lying to her. She frequently visited her priest, Father McAteer, during the following two week period and was urged by him to explain to her mother what had been occurring. Wanda finally told her mother in November of 1980 and Wanda, her mother and sister immediately vacated the house in which they had been living with appellant. Prosecution followed.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for statutory rape and corruption of a minor because the Commonwealth did not "establish with any degree of certainty a particular date . . . on which an act of sexual intercourse was alleged to have occurred." While the Commonwealth must establish to a reasonable degree of certainty the approximate date of the offense charged, "[t]he Commonwealth need not always prove a single specific date of the crime." Commonwealth v. Devlin, 460 Pa. 508, 516, 333 A.2d 888, 899 (1975). Accord: Commonwealth v. Niemetz, 282 Pa. Super. 431, 441, 422 A.2d 1369, 1374 (1980) allocatur denied February 3, ...