Case Name: Commonwealth v. Alexander, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1975-10-28
Citations: 237 Pa. Super. 111
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 1290
Parties: Commonwealth v. Alexander, Appellant.
Judges: Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Ceecone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 237
Pages: 111–120

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Alexander, Appellant.
Submitted December 2, 1974.
Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Ceecone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ.
William K. Sayer, Elaine DeMasse, and John W. Packet, Assistant Defenders, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.
Neil Kitrosser, Mark Sendrow, and Steven H. Gold-blatt, Assistant District Attorneys, Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
October 28, 1975:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Price, J.,
Appellant was charged with the crime of aggravated assault. He was tried before the Honorable Edward B. Rosenberg, sitting without a jury, and was found guilty on May 6, 1974. Following the denial of appellant's post-trial motions, he was sentenced to nine to twenty-three months in the county prison. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We find no merit to this contention and will, therefore, affirm.
It is fundamental that in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and give the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Commonwealth v. McFadden, 448 Pa. 146, 292 A.2d 358 (1972) ; Commonwealth v. Minor, 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 343, 322 A.2d 717 (1974). When we so view the evidence, we find it more than sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Briefly stated, the facts reveal that on March 6, 1974, appellant struck, with his closed fist, Herbert Rosenzweig on the head. Although Rosenzweig did not lose consciousness, he was knocked to the ground and stunned. The type of blow which appellant admittedly delivered to the victim would probably best be described as a "sucker punch" since the victim neither expected it nor saw it being delivered. The blow blackened both of Rosenzweig's eyes, fractured his nose, and required stitches to close the other wounds on his face. The victim was treated at the emergency ward of a hospital and released. A taxi cab driver parked nearby witnessed the attack and testified that appellant walked up to Rosenzweig, struck him, and then walked away. The cab driver began to chase appellant on foot. A police officer joined the chase and eventually apprehended appellant.
A person is guilty of the crime of aggravated assault if he:
"(1) 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." Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, §1 (18 Pa.C.S. §2702(a)(1)).
In addition, "serious bodily injury" is defined as:
"[bjodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, §1 (18 Pa.C.S. §2301).
To sustain the conviction we must, therefore, first determine if serious bodily injury occurred, and secondly, determine if appellant intended that result or acted so recklessly as to satisfy the requirements of the statute.
There can be no doubt that such head injuries as the victim here .sustained constitute serious bodily injury. As Judge Rosenberg ably noted in his opinion:
"Whether a punch in the nose is an aggravated assault appears to be a question of first impression which can be easily answered. An unprovoked blow deliberately delivered at close range with such force to the head that a fracture of a bone results, clearly evidences a lack of regard for the value of human life. Further, it is well known that any blow to the head may result in grave injuries. The head is recognized as the center and situs from which such functions as thought, intellect, memory, understanding and control originate and are controlled. It contains the body's most vital organs such as the brain, eyes, nose and mouth. It is considered as the most vital of all parts of the body for it is the depository of the body's control. Injury or harm to the head can destroy or immobilize the entire body reducing the most healthy human to a mere vegetable. A blow delivered to the head always runs the risk of creating serious harm to the effectiveness of the body. When delivered with such force and power at close range as to fracture the nose it is fortunate that total incapacity has not resulted. It is not necessary to show that serious bodily injury resulted, but that defendant attempted this objective. These premises have led this Court to conclude that, under these circumstances and conditions, Steve Alexander evidenced extreme indifference to the value of human life when he at such close range and with such force deliberately struck Herbert Rosenzweig in his face, breaking his nose."
The fact that the victim was not forced to spend an extended stay in the hospital does not mitigate the seriousness of the injuries. Also, it does not require elaborate reasoning to recognize that the injuries involved herein caused a protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.
Appellant contends that he did not intend to cause such serious injury to the victim. However, the requirements of the statute are satisfied where, as in this case, the appellant causes serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. Here the victim suffered a broken nose, two black eyes, and other wounds to the head requiring stitches. In addition, the method of appellant's attack on the victim further reveals extreme indifference to the value of human life. This attack, albeit a single punch, was of sufficient force to cause extensive and serious injuries to a very vital part of the human body. We are unimpressed by the fact that the appellant testified that he just meant to hit the victim and that if he had wanted to kill, he could probably have beaten the victim to death.
The judgment of sentence is affirmed.
. Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, §1 (18 Pa.C.S. §2702(a)(1)).