## Facts

- A fourteen-year-old girl was placed by juvenile court order in the physical custody of Joseph Mlinarich, an adult neighbor, while legal custody remained with Cambria County Children and Youth Services.
- The placement followed the girl’s court-ordered confinement in a county juvenile detention facility after her brother filed charges related to a missing ring.
- The girl testified that Mlinarich demanded sexual acts and threatened to have her returned to the juvenile detention facility if she refused.
- The girl stated she submitted because she feared recommitment and believed refusal would result in her return to detention.
- Mlinarich was convicted in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas of multiple offenses, including rape and attempted rape, based on sexual acts with the child while he had custodial authority.

## Issues

1. Whether an adult custodian’s threat to cause a fourteen-year-old ward to be recommitted to a juvenile detention facility constitutes “forcible compulsion,” or a “threat of forcible compulsion,” required for rape and attempted rape under Pennsylvania law.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the rape and attempted rape convictions for insufficient proof of “forcible compulsion,” while leaving other convictions in place.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review limited to the forcible-compulsion question.
- The Supreme Court was evenly divided (3–3) and, by per curiam order, affirmed the Superior Court’s order.
- As a result, the rape and attempted rape convictions remained reversed; the disposition did not alter the non-rape convictions.
- Because the court was equally divided, the separate “opinions in support of affirmance” and “opinions in support of reversal” did not produce a controlling majority rationale.

## Legal Principles

- An equally divided appellate court’s affirmance leaves the lower court’s judgment intact but does not establish binding precedent on the contested legal question.
- Under the view supporting affirmance, “forcible compulsion” and “threat of forcible compulsion” are assessed by an objective “person of reasonable resolution” standard and are not satisfied by threats to invoke lawful juvenile-court confinement rather than threats of immediate physical force.
- Under the view supporting reversal, “forcible compulsion” may include coercion through credible threats of confinement, particularly where an adult custodian uses custodial power over a minor to overcome resistance.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, evenly divided, affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal of rape and attempted rape convictions, leaving unresolved as binding law whether a custodian’s threat to have a minor recommitted to juvenile detention satisfies the rape statute’s forcible-compulsion requirement.


Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, 542 A.2d 1335 (Pa. 1988)