J-S17005-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HENRY BALLAYAN : : Appellant : No. 1681 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007305-2022
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JUNE 2, 2025
Henry Ballayan (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after the trial court convicted him of one count of indecent assault. 1
We affirm.
The following evidence was adduced at trial: At the time of the alleged
offense, Appellant was the pastor of a church in Philadelphia. N.T., 12/15/23,
at 12. Complainant is the cousin of Appellant’s wife. Id. Complainant
testified that on February 7, 2020, at approximately 11:00 a.m., she went to
Appellant’s church to meet Appellant, who had agreed to drive her to the
airport. Id. at 12-14. Complainant called Appellant to tell him she had
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). J-S17005-25
arrived, and he asked her to come inside the church because he was finishing
up some work. Id. at 14-15.
Complainant joined Appellant in a small office where he was working.
Id. at 15-18. Complainant asked Appellant when they would be leaving for
the airport. Id. at 16. According to Complainant, Appellant sat in a chair next
to her and asked, “what are you giving me before we leave[?]” Id. at 18.
Appellant “put his hand on [Complainant’s] lap,” “very close to … [her] vagina
area.” Id. When Complainant moved Appellant’s hand away and stood up,
Appellant pushed Complainant against the wall and pressed his body against
her. Id. at 18-19. Appellant squeezed Complainant’s cheeks and told her to
give him a kiss. Id. at 19. Complainant repeatedly told Appellant to stop,
but Appellant began rubbing her belly and “groping” her. Id. at 19-20.
Complainant testified that “one of [Appellant’s] hands was trying to reach into
my pants, like the front area where my vagina is.” Id. at 21. Complainant
managed to escape Appellant’s grasp and ran out of the church. Id. at 22.
Once outside, Complainant called Appellant and asked if he would still
drive her to the airport, and he confirmed he would. Id. at 23. Complainant
called her friend, Mariana Massaquoi (Ms. Massaquoi), and stayed on a
FaceTime call with her throughout the car ride. Id. at 24-26. Complainant
also testified she felt “more comfortable” because she knew Appellant would
be picking up his stepchildren from school, which was two minutes from the
church. Id. at 25-26, 28. Complainant testified that before they arrived at
-2- J-S17005-25
the school, Appellant told her, “I’m sorry for touching you like that.” Id. at
26. When Appellant went into the school, Complainant told Ms. Massaquoi
about the assault. Id. Ms. Massaquoi testified Complainant called her, “very
upset,” and told her Appellant had just tried to “grope her,” “kiss her,” and
“force himself on her.” Id. at 54. Complainant testified that when they
arrived at the airport, Appellant gave her $30. Id. at 27.
Appellant denied the incident ever occurred. According to Appellant,
Complainant was waiting for him in the church when he arrived with the
children already in his car. Id. at 66. Appellant testified he went to the church
door; Complainant came outside; and they got into the car with the children.
Id. Appellant testified Complainant asked him for $25, and he gave her $25
when they arrived at the airport. Id. Appellant claimed Complainant had
been upset with him and his wife because they disapproved of Complainant
having a romantic relationship with Appellant’s son, on the grounds that they
were cousins. Id. at 63. Appellant testified Complainant had told his wife
that Complainant was “going to put us into trouble.” Id.
After Appellant dropped her off at the airport, Complainant flew to North
Carolina for a work assignment. Id. at 13, 29. She testified that she did not
initially report the incident to police because she “was just in total shock and
disbelief as to what happened….” Id. Two days after the incident,
Complainant told her mother, and her mother urged her to call the police.
That same day, Complainant called police in North Carolina, who advised her
-3- J-S17005-25
she would have to report the incident to Philadelphia police. Id. Appellant
remained in North Carolina for a “full week of work….” Id. at 30. On February
18, 2020, after returning to Philadelphia, Appellant reported the incident to
Philadelphia police. Id.
The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with one count of
indecent assault.2 Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial on December 15, 2023. The Commonwealth
presented testimony from Complainant and Ms. Massaquoi, while Appellant
testified in his own defense. The parties also stipulated that a witness who
had known Appellant for eight years would have testified that she knows
Appellant has a good “reputation in the community for law-abiding behavior
and honesty.” Id. at 80. At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court convicted
Appellant of indecent assault.
On May 24, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 18 months’
probation. Appellant’s conviction also rendered him a Tier I offender under
the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, subjecting him to 15-
2 “A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with
the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and … the person does so without the complainant’s consent.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). “Indecent contact” is defined as “[a]ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of [a] person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person.” Id. § 3101.
-4- J-S17005-25
year registration and reporting requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9799.14(b)(6), 9799.15(a)(1). No post-sentence motion followed. Appellant
timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Appellant identifies the following issue for our review: “Was the verdict
against the weight of the evidence[,] such that no reasonable fact finder would
have found [A]ppellant guilty? Was said claim waived?” Appellant’s Brief at
4.
We first address whether Appellant preserved his weight claim for
appellate review. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607 provides, in
relevant part:
A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial:
(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing;
(2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or
(3) in a post-sentence motion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). “The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a
challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or
it will be waived.” Id., cmt. “Failure to challenge the weight of the evidence
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S17005-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HENRY BALLAYAN : : Appellant : No. 1681 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007305-2022
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JUNE 2, 2025
Henry Ballayan (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed after the trial court convicted him of one count of indecent assault. 1
We affirm.
The following evidence was adduced at trial: At the time of the alleged
offense, Appellant was the pastor of a church in Philadelphia. N.T., 12/15/23,
at 12. Complainant is the cousin of Appellant’s wife. Id. Complainant
testified that on February 7, 2020, at approximately 11:00 a.m., she went to
Appellant’s church to meet Appellant, who had agreed to drive her to the
airport. Id. at 12-14. Complainant called Appellant to tell him she had
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). J-S17005-25
arrived, and he asked her to come inside the church because he was finishing
up some work. Id. at 14-15.
Complainant joined Appellant in a small office where he was working.
Id. at 15-18. Complainant asked Appellant when they would be leaving for
the airport. Id. at 16. According to Complainant, Appellant sat in a chair next
to her and asked, “what are you giving me before we leave[?]” Id. at 18.
Appellant “put his hand on [Complainant’s] lap,” “very close to … [her] vagina
area.” Id. When Complainant moved Appellant’s hand away and stood up,
Appellant pushed Complainant against the wall and pressed his body against
her. Id. at 18-19. Appellant squeezed Complainant’s cheeks and told her to
give him a kiss. Id. at 19. Complainant repeatedly told Appellant to stop,
but Appellant began rubbing her belly and “groping” her. Id. at 19-20.
Complainant testified that “one of [Appellant’s] hands was trying to reach into
my pants, like the front area where my vagina is.” Id. at 21. Complainant
managed to escape Appellant’s grasp and ran out of the church. Id. at 22.
Once outside, Complainant called Appellant and asked if he would still
drive her to the airport, and he confirmed he would. Id. at 23. Complainant
called her friend, Mariana Massaquoi (Ms. Massaquoi), and stayed on a
FaceTime call with her throughout the car ride. Id. at 24-26. Complainant
also testified she felt “more comfortable” because she knew Appellant would
be picking up his stepchildren from school, which was two minutes from the
church. Id. at 25-26, 28. Complainant testified that before they arrived at
-2- J-S17005-25
the school, Appellant told her, “I’m sorry for touching you like that.” Id. at
26. When Appellant went into the school, Complainant told Ms. Massaquoi
about the assault. Id. Ms. Massaquoi testified Complainant called her, “very
upset,” and told her Appellant had just tried to “grope her,” “kiss her,” and
“force himself on her.” Id. at 54. Complainant testified that when they
arrived at the airport, Appellant gave her $30. Id. at 27.
Appellant denied the incident ever occurred. According to Appellant,
Complainant was waiting for him in the church when he arrived with the
children already in his car. Id. at 66. Appellant testified he went to the church
door; Complainant came outside; and they got into the car with the children.
Id. Appellant testified Complainant asked him for $25, and he gave her $25
when they arrived at the airport. Id. Appellant claimed Complainant had
been upset with him and his wife because they disapproved of Complainant
having a romantic relationship with Appellant’s son, on the grounds that they
were cousins. Id. at 63. Appellant testified Complainant had told his wife
that Complainant was “going to put us into trouble.” Id.
After Appellant dropped her off at the airport, Complainant flew to North
Carolina for a work assignment. Id. at 13, 29. She testified that she did not
initially report the incident to police because she “was just in total shock and
disbelief as to what happened….” Id. Two days after the incident,
Complainant told her mother, and her mother urged her to call the police.
That same day, Complainant called police in North Carolina, who advised her
-3- J-S17005-25
she would have to report the incident to Philadelphia police. Id. Appellant
remained in North Carolina for a “full week of work….” Id. at 30. On February
18, 2020, after returning to Philadelphia, Appellant reported the incident to
Philadelphia police. Id.
The Commonwealth subsequently charged Appellant with one count of
indecent assault.2 Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial on December 15, 2023. The Commonwealth
presented testimony from Complainant and Ms. Massaquoi, while Appellant
testified in his own defense. The parties also stipulated that a witness who
had known Appellant for eight years would have testified that she knows
Appellant has a good “reputation in the community for law-abiding behavior
and honesty.” Id. at 80. At the trial’s conclusion, the trial court convicted
Appellant of indecent assault.
On May 24, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 18 months’
probation. Appellant’s conviction also rendered him a Tier I offender under
the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, subjecting him to 15-
2 “A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with
the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and … the person does so without the complainant’s consent.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126(a)(1). “Indecent contact” is defined as “[a]ny touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of [a] person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in any person.” Id. § 3101.
-4- J-S17005-25
year registration and reporting requirements. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§
9799.14(b)(6), 9799.15(a)(1). No post-sentence motion followed. Appellant
timely appealed. Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P.
1925.
Appellant identifies the following issue for our review: “Was the verdict
against the weight of the evidence[,] such that no reasonable fact finder would
have found [A]ppellant guilty? Was said claim waived?” Appellant’s Brief at
4.
We first address whether Appellant preserved his weight claim for
appellate review. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607 provides, in
relevant part:
A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial:
(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing;
(2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or
(3) in a post-sentence motion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). “The purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a
challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or
it will be waived.” Id., cmt. “Failure to challenge the weight of the evidence
presented at trial in an oral or written motion prior to sentencing or in a post-
sentence motion will result in waiver of the claim.” Commonwealth v.
Bryant, 57 A.3d 191, 196 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607).
-5- J-S17005-25
Here, Appellant failed to raise his weight claim in a motion for a new
trial, either before sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. The trial court
and the Commonwealth maintain the claim is therefore waived. See Trial
Court Opinion, 9/16/24, at 3-4; Commonwealth Brief at 7-8.
Though Appellant concedes his non-compliance with Rule 607, he
nevertheless argues his claim is not waived. The entirety of his waiver
argument is as follows:
While it is true that the requirements of a post trial motion under Rule 607 were not adhered to, it is been noting [sic] that this case was conducted as a bench trial—not a jury trial. Where a jury has delivered a verdict, the necessity for the trial court to pass on sufficiency [sic] issues seems greater than if the verdict was delivered by the bench.
Appellant’s Brief at 9. Without citing authority, Appellant seems to suggest
that Rule 607 applies only to jury trials and not bench trials. See
Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775, 781 (Pa. Super. 2015)
(“When an appellant cites no authority supporting an argument, this Court is
inclined to believe there is none.”). However, Rule 607’s plain language
contains no exception for bench trials, and our research discloses abundant
caselaw applying the rule to bench trials. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Weir, 201 A.3d 163, 167 (Pa. Super. 2018) (following a bench trial,
defendant’s weight challenge was waived for appellate review due to
defendant’s failure to preserve it in accordance with Rule 607);
Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 622 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same);
Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 933 A.2d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Super. 2007)
-6- J-S17005-25
(same); Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(same); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(same). Therefore, as Appellant failed to preserve his weight claim in
accordance with Rule 607, the claim is waived. 3
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 6/2/2025
3 The trial court did not address the merits of Appellant’s weight claim in its
opinion. See generally Trial Court Opinion, 9/16/24 (opining Appellant waived his weight claim). Appellant argues the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because “the allegations surrounding the assault … are incredible and should never have been credited by the [finder] of fact.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. We observe that “[a] new trial is not warranted because of a mere conflict in the testimony and must have a stronger foundation than a reassessment of the credibility of witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).
-7-