Court Opinion

ID: 9703096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:40:03.202428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:17.845521
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the lower court. I would reverse the arrest of judgment and reinstate the jury verdict of guilty on the charge of aggravated assault.
A careful review of both the record and the appropriate laws lends support for a conviction of aggravated assault. As correctly stated by the majority, when an attempt is made to commit aggravated assault, or where the victim does not sustain serious bodily injury, specific intent must be proven to support a conviction. If serious bodily injury is inflicted, then specific intent is not the requisite element the Commonwealth must prove, recklessness is. Since serious bodily injury was conceded, the evidence must only establish recklessness. I believe it does.
The facts, as summarized by the majority, clearly show an unwarranted attack causing severe injuries. There was repeated testimony as to the smallness of the area in which the entire incident took place. It was inevitable that there would be an injury even if someone was merely pushed or shoved. Throwing a person into nearby concrete steps is most certainly going to result in serious injuries. Given the totality of the circumstances, I find the facts sufficient to satisfy the conviction. Appellee was indifferent to the consequences of his actions, thus rendering his actions reckless.
*351In light of the foregoing analysis, I would reverse the lower court’s arrest of judgment.