J-S38025-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

TAHIJ A. JOHNSON

Appellant No. 1334 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered May 9, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Criminal Division at No: CP-40-CR-0000899-2013

BEFORE: WECHT, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2015

Appellant, Tahij A. Johnson, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered for his conviction of aggravated assault and other crimes. Appellant 

challenges the trial court’s refusal to award a new trial based on the weight 

of the evidence. We affirm.

On February 20, 2013, Misty Williamson was at her house, 24 Essex 

Lane, Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, with Appellant, Rassan Hoskins, and 

John Longfoot.1 Williamson and Appellant had dated one another for a brief 

period. The four were drinking 90-proof vodka. Hoskins became angry at 

the way Appellant was speaking to Williamson, and Hoskins and Appellant 

began to argue. The verbal altercation turned physical, and it moved from 

____________________________________________

1 Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from the Trial Court 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 11/26/14, at 1-4.
J-S38025-15

- 2 -

the kitchen of Williamson’s house to the backyard area. That area is a 

parking lot, which was empty that night. Large boulders about one foot in 

height separate Williamson’s parking spaces from her neighbors. 

Williamson followed Hoskins and Appellant outside. She believed the 

fight was getting out of control, so she intervened. Williamson started 

yelling and tried to separate the two by pushing Hoskins off Appellant. In 

response, Appellant pushed her. Williamson fell, hitting the right side of her 

head on one of the boulders.

Williamson was bleeding below her right eyebrow, so she went to the 

second-floor bathroom of her house to clean herself. At that point, her jaw 

and nose were uninjured. Appellant entered the house and went upstairs. 

Hoskins and the other man had left. Williamson remembers being punched 

in the left side of her face by Appellant. After that point, Williamson could 

not remember what happened next.

Officers James Fisher and Steven Lada reported to Williamson’s house. 

They saw two people fleeing, and they tried to enter the house, but two pit 

bulls were loose inside. Upon entering, the officers encountered Williamson 

in the kitchen. Her face was bleeding and badly swollen. Her injuries were 

so severe that Officer Fisher testified, “I’ve seen people in car accidents that 

didn’t look that bad.” N.T. Trial, 4/9/14, at 133. When asked if Appellant 

caused her injuries, Williamson nodded affirmatively. She indicated that 

Appellant was upstairs inside the house.
J-S38025-15

- 3 -

Officer Lada heard movement and saw Appellant climbing out of a 

second-floor window. The officer yelled at Appellant to stop, but he ignored 

them. The officers deployed their Tasers, Officer Fisher unsuccessfully and 

Officer Lada successfully, and they apprehended Appellant. Officer Fisher 

later filed charges against Appellant.

An ambulance transported Williamson to Geisinger Hospital. 

Williamson told medical personnel there that Earl Johnson, her ex-boyfriend 

from six or seven years ago, caused the injuries. She later admitted that 

she did not want Appellant to get in trouble.

Williamson’s injuries were serious, and are permanent. Her jaw was 

broken in three places, her nose was broken, her eye socket was broken, 

and she needed stiches on her right eyebrow. She underwent surgery and 

had three plates and three screws inserted into the left side of her face. Her 

jaw was wired shut for eight weeks. During that time, Williamson could not 

eat solid food, so she subsisted on Boost nutritional drinks, cream of wheat, 

and other soft food. She was unable to live by herself, so she stayed with 

her sister. Williamson is permanently unable to chew on one side of her 

mouth, has no feeling on the left side of her chin, and must drink liquids 

with a straw. Her nose is permanently disfigured.

Williamson testified that she was afraid of Appellant on February 20, 

2013, and that she did not have contact with him after that night. Appellant 

nevertheless sent Williamson a letter:
J-S38025-15

- 4 -

I’m changing for myself and you right this moment. And I will 

not turn back because I don’t ever want to make another 

mistake like this.

I’ll stick up for you if they try to say you were harboring a 

fugitive. Call me as a witness and I’ll tell them that I wasn’t 

staying at the house. Please don’t let them convince you into 

burying me under the jail. They just want a case.

I’m on bent knees and begging you to forgive me for this wrong 

I have done.

P.S., I know they’re riding your heels for testimony at court. 

Don’t let them tear us apart. We belong together. I belong to 

you and you belong to me.

P.S.S. I’m not mad at you. Just please don’t show up at court.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/26/14, at 4 (quoting N.T. Trial, 4/9/14, at 100-03). 

Testifying in his own defense, Appellant admitted to writing the letter—which 

constituted a violation of a Protection from Abuse Act2order—because he 

“wanted to let [Williamson] know that [he] loved her,” id. at 210. Appellant 

generally denied injuring Williamson.

The jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault, simple assault, 

and resisting arrest.3 The trial court sentenced Appellant to 7 to 14 years in 

prison, followed by 2 years of probation. It later denied his post-sentence 

motion, which included a request for a new trial based on the weight of the 

evidence. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). This appeal followed.

____________________________________________

2 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-22.

3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(1), 2701(a)(1), and 5104, respectively. The 

parties agreed to sever a charge of flight to avoid apprehension, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5126. (Appellant was charged with burglary prior to the night of 

Williamson’s assault.)
J-S38025-15

- 5 -

On appeal, Appellant asks us to review the following question:

Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence 

when the evidence demonstrates that the complaining witness 

was accidentally injured after intervening in a physical 

altercation between the appellant and another male individual?

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (all-caps font removed).

The trial court determines whether the jury’s verdict is against the 

weight of the evidence in the context of a post-trial motion for a new trial. 

Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Pa. 2013).

Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise 

of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether 

the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because 

the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the 

evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest 

consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial 

judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the 

verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least 

assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the 

lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against 

the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be 

granted in the interest of justice.

Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) 

(emphasis added in Clay)) (internal citations omitted). Thus, we review the 

trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial for an abuse of 

discretion. Id.

As charged in this case, a person is guilty of aggravated assault if he 

“attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury 

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting 

extreme indifference to the value of human life[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2701(a)(1). Appellant claims he never intended to injure Williamson, who 
J-S38025-15

- 6 -

was accidentally hurt while intervening in the fight between Appellant and 

Hoskins. Appellant also claims Williamson could not remember how her 

injuries occurred, and had been drinking alcohol before being hurt. 

Appellant does not dispute the weight of the evidence showing that 

Williamson suffered serious bodily injury.

Regarding Appellant’s intent, it is true that a person who justifiably 

uses self-defense is not criminally liable for recklessly injuring an innocent 

bystander. See Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130, 1134 (Pa. 

1998). There was no finding, however, that Appellant was justifiably 

defending himself when fighting with Hoskins. Moreover, to be guilty of 

aggravated assault, the Commonwealth did not need to prove intent to 

injure, since Williamson indisputably suffered serious bodily injury. The 

Commonwealth needed to prove only mere recklessness under 

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. 

Appellant further errs in looking in isolation at the altercation that took place 

in Williamson’s backyard, which resulted in an injury to the right side of her 

face. Appellant fails to acknowledge Williamson’s broken nose, jaw, and eye 

socket, and injuries to the left side of her face. 

In arguing that Williamson could not remember how her more serious 

injuries occurred, Appellant cherry-picks evidence from the record for 

favorable evidence while ignoring inculpatory evidence. He fails to address 

Williamson’s testimony that she remembered being hit by Appellant on the 

left side of her face. Appellant ignores evidence tending to show that only 
J-S38025-15

- 7 -

he and Williamson were present inside her house when she suffered those 

injuries. Appellant fails to address his attempt to flee by jumping out of a 

second-floor window, which shows consciousness of guilt. The jury also 

could consider Appellant’s letter sent to Williamson as evidence of guilt. 

Moreover, in contending that the police officers never secured forensic 

evidence to bolster Williamson’s testimony, Appellant neglects to 

acknowledge that corroboration was not required. In any event, Appellant 

does not argue that any forensic investigation would have been exculpatory. 

Indeed, the only exculpatory evidence Appellant presented at trial was his 

own self-serving testimony. 

We have reviewed the record and the evidence presented at trial. As 

stated above, “[a] trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial based on a 

weight of the evidence claim is the least assailable of its rulings.” 

Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 879-80 (Pa. 2008). Appellant 

here has not convinced us that the trial court abused its discretion in 

denying a new trial based on weight of the evidence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2015