## Facts

- Geraldine Boykai (Wife) and Ted Young (Husband) married in 2011 and had one child.
- Wife testified that during the marriage Husband demanded intercourse multiple times per day.
- Wife testified that when she refused, Husband physically overpowered her and compelled intercourse.
- Wife also testified that Husband threatened to withhold financial support for Wife and their child if she did not submit to intercourse.
- In 2013, Wife filed a petition for a protection-from-abuse (PFA) order under Pennsylvania’s Protection From Abuse Act (PFA Act), 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101 et seq.
- The trial court entered a temporary PFA order and later held an evidentiary hearing to decide whether to enter a final order.
- Husband denied using physical force and challenged Wife’s characterization of “force,” asserting that, as an African immigrant, she may have used the term incorrectly.
- The trial court credited Wife’s testimony, found that Husband’s conduct met the PFA Act’s definition of “abuse” (including conduct amounting to rape or sexual assault), and entered a one-year final PFA order.
- The final order, among other relief, prohibited Husband from contacting Wife and required him to vacate the family residence.
- Husband appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion by finding “abuse” under the PFA Act based on Wife’s testimony that Husband compelled intercourse against her will.
2. Whether “abuse” under the PFA Act requires proof of physical force, and whether the evidence supported a finding of rape or sexual assault when Husband claimed there was no physical force.
3. Whether Husband’s argument that Wife misused the term “force” because of cultural or language differences required reversal of the PFA order.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the one-year final PFA order.
- The court held that the trial court’s credited findings supported a conclusion that Husband’s conduct constituted “abuse” under the PFA Act.
- The court rejected Husband’s argument that abuse required proof of physical force, explaining that the PFA Act includes rape and sexual assault within “abuse,” and that force is not a required element for all forms of abuse recognized by the Act.
- To the extent the trial court treated the conduct as rape by forcible compulsion, the Superior Court explained that “forcible compulsion” can include psychological or intellectual coercion and is not limited to overt physical violence.
- The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations in favor of Wife and against Husband.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a final PFA order is for an error of law or an abuse of discretion; the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner as the prevailing party.
- The trial court, as factfinder, decides credibility and the weight of the evidence; appellate courts generally do not reweigh testimony or disturb supported credibility findings.
- The PFA Act is intended to protect victims of domestic abuse; “abuse” includes crimes such as rape and sexual assault as defined in the Crimes Code.
- Under Pennsylvania law, “forcible compulsion” for rape may be established by physical, intellectual, moral, emotional, or psychological force, express or implied.
- Even aside from forcible-compulsion rape, nonconsensual intercourse constituting sexual assault may support a finding of “abuse” for PFA relief.

## Conclusion

In *Boykai v. Young*, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a one-year final PFA order after the trial court credited the wife’s testimony that her husband repeatedly compelled intercourse against her will, including by physically overpowering her and threatening to withhold financial support. The court held that such conduct fits within the PFA Act’s definition of abuse—through rape by forcible compulsion and/or sexual assault—and that the husband’s claim that there was no physical force, or that the wife used the term “force” incorrectly, did not show legal error or an abuse of discretion.


Boykai v. Young, 83 A.3d 1043 (2014)