Submitted June 23, 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-26-CR-0001849-2012. Before SOLOMON, J.
Michael J. Garofalo, Uniontown, for appellant.
Anthony S. Iannamorelli, Jr, Assistant District Attorney, Uniontown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.
Jonathan McDonough appeals from his judgment of sentence, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, after he was convicted by a jury of indecent assault, a second-degree misdemeanor. McDonough was sentenced to one to two years' incarceration, in addition to being required to register for 15 years as a sex offender under our Commonwealth's Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On appeal, McDonough challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether the victim consented to his sexual acts and the constitutionality of SORNA's sex-offender registration provisions. After review, we affirm.
McDonough and the victim had an " on again, off again" relationship for more than six years prior to the alleged incident. They had two children together. On August 29, 2012, McDonough allegedly inserted his fingers into the victim's vagina, performed oral sex upon her, and had sexual intercourse with her, all without the victim's consent. The victim testified that she repeatedly told McDonough " no" throughout the entire encounter. Although in his pre-arrest statement to the police McDonough admitted the victim did not consent to any of his actions, at trial he testified that the victim consented to his sexual conduct on the night in question.
After a jury trial, McDonough was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to one to two years in prison. McDonough was classified as a " Tier 1" offender under SORNA and ordered to register with the Pennsylvania State Police for 15 years as a sexual offender. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(1).
McDonough first claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim did not consent to his actions where she admitted to having had consensual sex with him prior to, during, and after the alleged incident.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of the crimes charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwea ...