J-S06027-17

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ANNETTE SHADDING

Appellant No. 948 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 1, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0000097-2015

BEFORE: MOULTON, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2017

Appellant, Annette Shadding, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

of four years of probation, imposed March 1, 2016, following a bench trial 

resulting in her conviction for simple assault and recklessly endangering 

another person (“REAP”).1 We affirm.

We adopt the following statement of facts from the trial court’s 

opinion, which in turn is supported by the record. See Trial Court Opinion 

(TCO), 7/19/16, at 1-4. At some time in 2014, Appellant stored some of her 

belongings in the home of Neshea Jackson. After some time passed, Ms. 

Jackson contacted Appellant to request that she pick up the belongings. 

Appellant was very angry during this phone call.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a), 2705.
J-S06027-17

- 2 -

On December 22, 2014, Appellant approached Ms. Jackson, who was 

walking with her children. Ms. Jackson informed Appellant she could not 

speak at that time. In response, Appellant hit Ms. Jackson with an 

unidentified object in the left shoulder and the forehead. Ms. Jackson fell to 

the ground, hitting her head and shoulder, and the two women began to 

struggle. During the altercation Appellant “gnawed” on Ms. Jackson’s finger. 

Ms. Jackson did not strike Appellant in return, but attempted to pull herself 

up from the ground. 

Police officers arrived and observed Ms. Jackson with visible injuries, 

including a large knot on her head and “a cut.”2 Ms. Jackson identified 

Appellant as her assailant. Appellant lied to police officers about her 

identity. Further, police officers observed Appellant had no visible injuries, 

was not wearing an arm brace, and did not have her arm zipped into her 

jacket. Ms. Jackson lost consciousness3and was taken by ambulance to the 

Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania, where she was diagnosed with a 

broken shoulder and head trauma. As a result of her injuries, Ms. Jackson 

underwent surgery and physical therapy.4

____________________________________________

2 The record does not indicate where Ms. Jackson was cut.

3 See Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 12/29/15, at 74.

4 The Commonwealth introduced medical records, including x-rays, as well 

as photographs taken the night the incident occurred, to illustrate Ms. 

Jackson’s injuries. See N.T., at 27-28, 29-32.
J-S06027-17

- 3 -

Appellant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, 

possession of an instrument of crime,5simple assault, and REAP. The 

matter proceeded to trial. 

At trial, Appellant testified that in August 2009, she had been in an 

automobile accident and injured her arm. As a result, she no longer had full 

use of that arm and wore a brace, which she had zipped into her jacket. 

According to Appellant, Ms. Jackson instigated the fight by hitting her in the 

back of the head. Appellant claimed that, as a result of the limited use of 

her arm, she could not hit Ms. Jackson. She denied striking Ms. Jackson. As 

a rebuttal to this testimony, counsel stipulated that Appellant had prior 

convictions for crimen falsi, including retail theft and conspiracy. 

Appellant was convicted of simple assault and recklessly endangering 

another person, and she was acquitted of the remaining charges. On March 

1, 2016, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years of 

probation.

Appellant timely appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial 

court issued a responsive opinion.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

1. The trial court erred when it found [Appellant] guilty [of] 

simple assault and related charges when the evidence was 

____________________________________________

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702, 907.
J-S06027-17

- 4 -

insufficient since self-defense was asserted and the 

Commonwealth did not overcome its burden to rebut that the 

facts did not establish self-defense or the force used was 

excessive. 

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her 

convictions because the Commonwealth did not overcome its burden to 

rebut her self-defense claim. See Appellant’s Brief at 10. Appellant argues 

that she was at a “disadvantage” when Ms. Jackson allegedly attacked her, 

as her disabled arm was zipped up in her jacket. Id. Appellant contends 

that her injuries were consistent with Ms. Jackson being an initial aggressor 

and that she was engaging in self-defense. Id.

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as follows.

In determining whether there was sufficient evidentiary support 

for a jury’s finding [], the reviewing court inquires whether the 

proofs, considered in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as a verdict winner, are sufficient to enable a 

reasonable jury to find every element of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt. The court bears in mind that: the 

Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence; the entire trial record should be 

evaluated and all evidence received considered, whether or not 

the trial court’s rulings thereon were correct; and the trier of 

fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the 

weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence.

Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 877 (Pa. 2008) (citations 

omitted). 

Force may only be used in self-defense when immediately necessary to 

protect oneself. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(a). When confronted with non-
J-S06027-17

- 5 -

deadly force, a defendant’s responding actions must not be excessive under 

the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Cutts, 421 A.2d 1172, 1173 

(Pa. Super. 1980). Excessive force is not justifiable when repelling an attack 

by an unarmed assailant. See Commonwealth v. Witherspoon, 730 A.2d 

496, 499 (Pa. Super. 1999). 

With regard to a claim of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the 

burden of disproving that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See 

Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1221 (Pa. 2009). This burden 

may not be sustained solely on the factfinder’s disbelief of the defendant’s 

testimony. Id. 

Here, the evidence Appellant introduced that could potentially support 

a claim of self-defense was solely based on her own testimony. She offered 

no other evidence in support of this contention. Appellant claimed that Ms. 

Jackson had attacked her and that her arm was in a brace and zipped into 

her jacket during the altercation. Counsel stipulated to Appellant’s prior 

convictions for crimen falsi for retail theft and conspiracy. See Pa.R.E. 609 

(“For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that 

the witness has been convicted of a crime . . . must be admitted if it 

involved dishonesty or false statement.”); see also Commonwealth v. 

Howard, 823 A.2d 911, 913 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting that retail theft 

is crimen falsi and may be used to prove a lack of character for 

truthfulness). 
J-S06027-17

- 6 -

As noted, supra, the burden may not be sustained solely on the 

factfinder’s disbelief of the defendant’s testimony. Rivera, 983 A.2d at 

1221. Accordingly, the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of Ms. 

Jackson, who credibly testified that she was walking down the street with 

her children and attempted to avoid interaction with Appellant. Ms. Jackson 

testified that Appellant attacked her, striking her in the head with an 

unidentified object, and that during the altercation, she did not strike 

Appellant. Ms. Jackson required surgery for a broken shoulder and physical 

therapy as a result of injuries inflicted upon her by Appellant. Medical 

records and photographs corroborated this testimony.

Further, police officers testified that Appellant was not visibly injured 

following the altercation and that her arm was neither in a sling nor zipped 

into her jacket. In contrast, Ms. Jackson was visibly injured.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to 

disprove Appellant’s claim that she was acting in self-defense and had not 

used excessive force. Witherspoon, 730 A.2d at 499. Based upon the 

above, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the 

Commonwealth had disproved Appellant’s claim of self-defense beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1211.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S06027-17

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2017