Court Opinion

ID: 9774903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:37:40.889822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:17.553519
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
DONOHUE, J.:
Because the learned Majority marginalizes Supreme Court precedent directly on point and parses the facts of the case in ways I believe were never contemplated by either the trial court or even the Commonwealth, I respectfully dissent. In Commonwealth v. O’Hanlon, 539 Pa. 478, 653 A.2d 616 (1995), our Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally ruled that for aggravated assault the requisite malice requires that the crime was “the functional equivalent of a murder in which, for some reason, death fails to occur ...” Id. at 482-83, 653 A.2d at 618. Far from the “functional equivalent of murder,” this case involves nothing more than a common street fight between two willing participants. Burton did not use a weapon or any escalating force, and there is no evidence of record to support any suggestion that he could reasonably have anticipated that serious bodily injury was the likely and logical consequences of the single blow he landed in the fight. Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Burton was larger than his willing street fight opponent and Burton threw the first expected punch which tragically resulted in serious injuries to his opponent. Under O’Hanlon and other precedent, this is not, as a matter of law, aggravated assault.
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. § 2702(a)(1). Serious bodily injury is defined as bodily 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.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.
Where, as here,1 a victim suffers serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth is not required to prove specific intent. Commonwealth v. Patrick, 933 A.2d 1043, 1046 (Pa.Super.2007)(en banc). Rather, the Commonwealth must prove only that the defendant acted with malice, which is defined as acting recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.2 Id.; Commonwealth v. Nichols, 692 A.2d 181, 185 (Pa.Super.1997). To rise to the level of malice, an offensive act must be performed under circumstances which “almost assure that injury or death will ensue.” O’Hanlon, 539 Pa. at 483, 653 A.2d at 618; see also Patrick, 933 A.2d at 1046; Commonwealth v. Payne, 868 A.2d 1257, 1261 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 583 Pa. 681, 877 A.2d 461 (2005) (“[t]o prove malice, ‘it must be shown that the defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm’ ”).
In OH anion3 our Supreme Court made clear that the crime of aggravated assault *607is “the functional equivalent of a murder in which, for some reason, death fails to occur,” and elaborated upon the degree of culpability that must be proven to support a conviction under section 2702(a)(1):
[F]or the degree of recklessness contained in the aggravated assault statute to occur, the offensive act must be performed under circumstances which almost assure that injury or death will ensue. The recklessness must, therefore, be such that life threatening injury is essentially certain to occur. This state of mind is, accordingly, equivalent to that which seeks to cause injury. Examples of such behavior make the distinction clear. In Commonwealth v. Daniels, 467 Pa. 35, 354 A.2d 538 (1976), appellant had fired a gun into a crowd; in Commonwealth v. Laing, [456 A.2d 204 (Pa.Super.1983) ], appellant drove his car into a crowd, after having aimed it at an individual; in [Commonwealth v.] Scofield, [521 A.2d 40 (Pa.Super.1987) ], the appellant drove at a pedestrian. [See also] Commonwealth v. Hlatky, [626 A.2d 575 (Pa.Super.1993) ];
Commonwealth v. Rohach, [496 A.2d 768 (Pa.Super.1985) ]. In each of these instances, the defendant could reasonably anticipate that serious bodily injury or death would be the likely and logical consequence of his actions. In each case, the consequence was ignored.
O’Hanlon, 539 Pa. at 482-83, 653 A.2d at 618.
Since Burton admits that his actions caused serious bodily injury, this Court should limit its analysis to whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice, i.e., with an extreme indifference to the value of human life under circumstances which almost assured that injury or death would ensue. Burton argues that the evidence presented at trial failed to prove that he acted with malice, claiming that although he threatened to fight Price and then punched him, he neither threatened to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon Price, nor used a deadly weapon on him. He notes that he did not employ escalating force on Price, “sucker punch” him,4 or *608otherwise continue to assault him once he was rendered helpless. Appellant’s Brief at 8,14. Instead, Burton contends that he rendered a single blow, from which “such terrible consequences could not have been reasonably expected.” Id. at 14.
Burton directs our attention to a panel decision of this Court presenting facts substantially similar to those in this case. In Commonwealth v. Roche, 788 A.2d 766 (Pa.Super.2001), allocatur denied, 568 Pa. 736, 798 A.2d 1289 (2002), while drinking in a bar Roche asked his victim if he wanted to arm wrestle. Roche was twice as large and appeared to be much stronger than his victim. After the victim and his Mend left the bar, the defendant and his friend followed them into a nearby alleyway. The defendant asked the victim “Are you a tough guy?” and delivered a single closed-fist blow to the victim’s left eye once he turned around. The victim fell to the ground, his head struck the concrete, and he was rendered unconscious. He was subsequently hospitalized for five days during which it was determined that he had suffered serious injuries to his head and eye. After a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault, simple assault and REAP.
On appeal, the defendant argued to this Court that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his aggravated assault conviction because his “single weaponless punch to the victim’s head did not demonstrate the requisite intent on his part to cause the victim serious bodily injury nor did the single punch evidence a heightened degree of recklessness on his part.” Id. at 768. We concluded, inter alia, that the facts of the case did not establish that Roche acted with the requisite malice required to support a conviction for aggravated assault. Id. at 771. In finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Roche acted recklessly, we found:
Appellant’s act of throwing one punch after using belligerent words was clearly insufficient to establish that he acted with such a heightened degree of recklessness that he was virtually assured that death or serious injury would occur from his act. Appellant was not, nor could he be, virtually or even reasonably certain that death or serious injury would be the likely and logical result of his lone punch. This was not the functional equivalent of a murder in which for whatever reason death failed to occur.
Id. at 772 (emphasis added).5
Burton also compares the facts of his case to those presented in Commonwealth *609v. Magnelli, 348 Pa.Super. 345, 502 A.2d 241 (1985). In Magnelli, the defendant grabbed a police officer and threw him into nearby concrete steps after he and another officer arrested the defendant’s brother for disorderly conduct. The officer suffered what was conceded to be serious bodily injury by the defendant. On appeal, this Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the defendant had acted recklessly “under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Id. at 243.
After reviewing the law pertaining to recklessness and aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), I cannot agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the evidence proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Burton displayed the level of recklessness required for a conviction under that section. The facts of this case simply do not present anything approaching “the functional equivalent of a murder in which, for some reason, death fails to occur.” O’Hanlon, 539 Pa. at 483, 653 A.2d at 618. Instead, this case involves a common street fight between two willing participants. Unlike in Patrick, where the victim was caught unawares by a sucker punch, here both parties walked to the end of the block knowing that a fight was imminent. Burton did not use a weapon. After he delivered a single blow with his fist, Burton made no attempt to continue punching or hitting his immobilized victim.6 While it is true that after the punch Burton said “I told you I was going to get you,” these words at most reflected Burton’s intention to injure Price. They do not, however, establish that Burton intended to cause serious bodily injury or death to Price, or that he had any reason to believe that a life-threatening injury was “essentially certain to occur” as a result of the single punch, per the standards articulated by our Supreme Court in O’Hanlon.
Moreover, Burton’s behavior did not rise to the level of the examples of recklessness provided in O’Hanlon, e.g., firing a gun into a crowd, driving a ear into a crowd or at a pedestrian. In those cases, the defendants could reasonably anticipate that serious bodily injury or death would be the likely and logical consequence of their actions and that they ignored that risk. The evidence does not support a similar conclusion with respect to Burton’s street fight with Price.
In its written opinion submitted pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(a), the trial court did not discuss the holding of Roche or engage in an analysis of recklessness pursuant to the standards set forth by our Supreme Court in O’Hanlon. Instead, it analyzed whether Burton possessed the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury using a list of factors for determining specific intent set forth in Commonwealth v. Alexander, 477 Pa. 190, 383 A.2d 887 (1978).7 *610Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/08, at 5-8. In Alexander, our Supreme Court ruled that a single punch, without more, does not establish that an appellant acted with malice. Id. at 194, 383 A.2d at 889. The Supreme Court listed various factors to be considered in deciding whether malice exists, including: the relative sizes of the appellant and the victim; whether the appellant had to be restrained from escalating his attack upon the victim; whether the appellant had weapons or implements to aid his attack; and whether the appellant made any statements before, during or after the attack to indicate his intent to inflict further injury upon the victim. Id.
The Majority concludes that because two of these factors were present in this case (Burton’s disproportionate size and his threatening statements), this established Burton’s intent to cause serious bodily injury to Price. With respect to size of Burton and Price, Price testified at trial that he was 5'5]/>" and weighed approximately 162 pounds on the date of the incident. N.T., 4/10/08, at 10. Burton’s physical characteristics on the date of the fight were neither established at trial nor entered into the record. The trial court did ask him to stand up and apparently determined by looking at him that Burton appeared to be over 6'0" tall, to weigh over 200 pounds, and to be significantly larger and more muscular than Price. Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/08, at 5.
In this regard, the facts here do not differ significantly from those presented in Roche. There the defendant was found to be twice as large as and much stronger than the victim. The defendant was also acting belligerently, challenging his victim to arm wrestle and then asking if he was “a tough guy” before striking him. This Court found, however, that while it was indisputable that the victim suffered serious bodily injury from the single blow delivered by the defendant, the attendant facts and circumstances (including the defendant’s size and strength) did not suggest that the blow was delivered with the specific intent of inflicting serious bodily injury, or with a reckless disregard for human life. Roche, 783 A.2d at 770. As such, the proportionate size of the participants in the fight is not, without more, dispositive on the issue of malice.8
*611With regard to Burton’s statements in connection with the fight, the Majority misapplies this Alexander factor. Ignoring the actual language of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander, the Majority contends that Burton’s “I got you” statement confirms the existence of this Alexander factor because it demonstrates that Burton “intended to inflict the victim’s injuries.” Majority Opinion at 603. Of course, as indicated in the text herein-above, the fourth Alexander is whether the appellant made any statements before, during or after the attack that “indicate his intent to inflict further injury upon the victim.” Alexander, 477 Pa. at 194, 383 A.2d at 889 (emphasis added). Burton’s “I got you” statement does not reflect any intent to inflict any further injury on Price. To the contrary, there is no evidence in the record on appeal that Burton took any action after the initial punch to inflict any further injury on Price or made any statements indicating an intent to inflict further injury on Price. As is our obligation, we should apply the factors set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander as written, rather than as modified to fit the facts of a different case.
Importantly, in my view the factors set forth in Alexander were not intended to provide a quantitative test to determine whether malice exists in these cases. Instead, they are merely useful guides to assist in determining whether the heightened degree of recklessness required for aggravated assault under subsection 2702(a)(1) exists. Regardless of whether any or all of the Alexander factors exists in a particular case, the standards more recently elucidated by the Supreme Court in O’Hanlon must ultimately direct the analysis. The offensive act must occur under circumstances in which life-threatening injury or death is essentially certain to occur, and where the defendant could reasonably expect that serious bodily injury or death would be the “likely and logical consequences of his actions.” O’Hanlon, 539 Pa. at 482-83, 653 A.2d at 618.
In determining whether the Commonwealth proves that an appellant had the requisite intent, a fact-finder is free to conclude that “the accused intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions to result therefrom.” Faulk, 928 A.2d at 1070 (citation omitted). While Price’s injuries were horrific, I cannot conclude that they were “natural and probable consequences” of a single punch from Burton in a perfunctory street fight. Accordingly, I would rule that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of aggravated assault, and dissent from the Majority’s conclusion to the contrary.

. Burton acknowledges that he caused Price to suffer serious bodily injury. Appellant's Brief at 10.

. Malice exists where there is a "wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured.” Commonwealth v. Bruce, 207 Pa.Super. 4, 916 A.2d 657, 664 (2007) (citation omitted).

.The Majority refuses to apply the legal principles set forth in O’Hanlon to this case, noting factual differences between the two cases. Majority Opinion at 605. Respectfully, while it is true that O’Hanlon involved a car crash *607resulting from a driver under the influence of alcohol rather than (as here) a punch to the face, both cases involve sufficiency of the evidence claims for the crime of aggravated assault. More importantly, both cases present precisely the same legal issue for resolution, as both identically involve an appellant having inflicted serious bodily injury on a victim, thus requiring the Commonwealth to prove that the appellant acted with malice. See, e.g., Patrick, 933 A.2d at 1046. O’Hanlon constitutes our Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement of the relevant legal principles applicable to proof of malice in an aggravated assault case where the appellant has inflicted serious bodily injury. As a result, this Court must apply those legal principles in resolution of this case. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Warrick, 415 Pa.Super. 385, 609 A.2d 576, 580 n. 4 (1992), allocatur denied, 534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1157 (1993) (as an intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court is bound by the decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and absent a legally relevant distinction between a previous decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and a case before the Superior Court, this Court is obliged to follow the mandate of the prior Supreme Court ruling).

. The Majority’s contention that the victim in this case “was unprepared when he was actually struck,” Majority Opinion at 603 & n. 3, is wholly unsupported by the record on appeal. In particular, the record does not reflect that either the Commonwealth or the trial court (as the trier of fact) ever even suggested (either at trial, in the Rule 1925(a) opinion, or in appellate briefs) that Price was anything other than a willing participant in a common street fight. Indeed, Price and Burton both walked to a different location to engage in the fight (the end of the block), and Price removed items from his pockets and gave them to Moody in preparation for the fight. N.T., 4/10/08, at 18, 20. Moody testified merely that he heard a punch and a grunting noise as he stepped out of the way *608from between the combatants, after both Price and Burton had demanded that he do so. Moody did not testify regarding how long it was from the time he started to move out of the way until the time when he heard the punch, or otherwise suggest any reason to suspect that Burton had hit Price when he was not suspecting it. N.T., 4/10/08, at 20-21. Even when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, inference evidence must follow beyond a reasonable doubt from facts proved at trial. Commonwealth v. Sojourner, 268 Pa.Super. 472, 408 A.2d 1100, 1104 (1978). No evidence supports a reasonable inference of a sucker punch in this case. Instead, the eyewitness testimony from Moody establishes that Burton and Price intended to fight each other and that Price and Burton jointly signaled their intention to begin the street fight by demanding that Moody get out of the way. Id. at 20.

. In Patrick, we held that a defendant acted with “reckless indifference under circumstances which virtually assured serious bodily injury” where he "sucker punched” his victim after getting into an altercation with him at a bar. Patrick, 933 A.2d at 1047. The victim in Patrick had his back to his assailant and his hands in his pockets at the time of the blow, which rendered him unable to stop his fall. In Patrick, we distinguished Roche by noting that the defendant in Roche challenged the *609sufficiency of the evidence following his bench trial conviction of aggravated assault, whereas the trial court in Patrick dismissed the defendant's aggravated assault charge upon a pre-trial habeas corpus motion. Id. In addition to this procedural difference, we distinguish the instant case from Patrick because Price was not sucker punched by Burton nor was he caught defenseless or off guard by the blow. See n. 4 supra.

. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Davis, 267 Pa.Super. 370, 406 A.2d 1087 (1979) (appellant found to have acted recklessly where he punched his girlfriend once in the face, chased her out of the house, broke the windshield of a car she had fled into, and then beat her again).

. In its written opinion, the trial court stated that this Court has "repeatedly acknowledged that an actor may intend to cause 'serious bodily injury’ with only a single punch.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/08, at 4. However, the principal case the trial court cited in support of this proposition, Commonwealth v. Dailey, 828 A.2d 356 (Pa.Super.2003), did not involve a single punch. In Dailey, the appellant *610punched his victim at least twice in the face with a closed fist and would have inflicted more if he had not been subdued by others. Id. at 360-61. This Court has previously found that multiple blows to the head may constitute recklessness under section 2701(a)(1). See Commonwealth v. Faulk, 928 A.2d 1061 (Pa.Super.2007); Bruce, 916 A.2d at 662.
Moreover, the cases cited in Dailey are inap-posite to the case at bar because they all involved prosecutions under section 2702(a)(3), which provides that "attempts to cause or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury" to, inter alia, police officers constitute aggravated assault. See Commonwealth v. Biagini, 540 Pa. 22, 655 A.2d 492 (1995); Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 764 A.2d 582 (Pa.Super.2000), Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa.Super.2001). Because subsection (a)(3) refers merely to "bodily injury,” rather than to "serious bodily injury” as in subsection (a)(1), O’Hanlon’s heightened degree of recklessness required for a conviction under subsection (a)(1) is not required for a conviction under subsection (a)(3).

. Although the Commonwealth now characterizes Burton’s punch as a "bone-shattering, knockout blow to the head,” Appellee's Brief at 2, it introduced no medical or expert testimony at trial to substantiate this claim. Instead, it merely introduced Price's medical records and a stipulation summarizing his injuries.
Similarly, in its written opinion the trial court speculates that when a "significantly weaker victim” receives a blow to the head, there is an "elevated probability the victim will be rendered unconscious or temporarily incapacitated ('dazed') due to deficient physical stature.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/08, at 6. Again, however, there is simply no evidence *611of record (including but not limited to medical expert testimony) to support such a finding.