Court Opinion

ID: 9389975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:07:51.696686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.825854
License: Public Domain

J-S38037-22

                                   2023 PA Super 71

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                v.                             :
                                               :
    WILFREDO SANTIAGO                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 940 EDA 2022

          Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 2, 2022,
             in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001959-2020.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                                FILED APRIL 26, 2023

       Wilfredo Santiago appeals from the judgment of sentence imposing an

aggregate period of seven to 14 years’ incarceration, after a jury convicted

him of aggravated assault and related offenses.1 He challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence for the aggravated assault charge. Santiago punched a police

officer knocking him down four steps causing him to hit his head on the

concrete sidewalk and giving him a concussion – a serious brain injury. We

affirm.

       The Commonwealth correctly summarized the facts as follows:

                 On July 27, 2019, . . . the Easton Police Department
           dispatched officers to Ferry Street after receiving a noise
           complaint. N.T., 1/31/22, at 32. One of the officers that
           responded, in full uniform and driving a marked patrol

____________________________________________

1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(2). While not at issue in this appeal, Santiago’s
related offenses are riot, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5501(2); obstructing administration
of law, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101; hindering apprehension, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
5105(A)(2); simple assault, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1); and recklessly
endangering another person, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
J-S38037-22

          vehicle, was Officer Aaron Kinnel, who had seven years’
          experience in law enforcement. There were dozens of
          people in the street attending an impromptu block party.
          Several of those individuals repeatedly screamed insults,
          curses, and threats at the responding officers.

                One of the individuals yelling at the police was Orialis
          Figueroa . . . Officers [eventually] decided to take Figueroa
          into custody to prevent further incident; however, when he
          was told he was under arrest, Figueroa ran to his apartment
          building . . .

                 Officer Kinnel attempted to follow Figueroa, but
          Figueroa’s sister intervened and tried to prevent him from
          apprehending Figueroa. Id. at 42; Commonwealth’s Exhibit
          1, Video A.[2] As Officer Kinnel made his way up the four
          steps to the front stoop of the apartment building, two
          individuals grabbed for his gun. Further, Ramona Colon,
          who was Figueroa’s mother and [Santiago’s] girlfriend,
          stepped into the doorway of the apartment building to block
          Officer Kinnel’s entry. Officer Kinnel moved Colon out of his
          way and attempted to arrest Figueroa. At this point,
          Figueroa pulled away from Officer Kinnel and began fighting
          with him. At the same time, numerous people standing on
          the front stoop of the apartment building were also
          interfering with Officer Kinnel’s attempt to arrest Figueroa.
          This included [Santiago], who leapt over the railing to join
          the melee.

                Officer Kinnel took out his taser, but someone
          knocked it out of his hand. N.T., 1/31/22, at 44. [He] bent
          down to retrieve the taser and attempted to use it on
          Figueroa, but only one prong made contact and Figueroa
          was not subdued. The other prong hit Colon. In the
          commotion, Officer Kinnel also received shocks from the
          taser. Officer Kinnel was knocked to the ground on the front
          stoop. Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1, Video A.

                After managing to stand up, Officer Kinnel attempted
          to radio for help. However, when Officer Kinnel was not
          looking, [Santiago] punched him in the face and then
____________________________________________

2 We have reviewed the cellphone video found on Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1.
It fully supports the Commonwealth’s version of events.

                                           -2-
J-S38037-22

         pushed him off the porch. Id.; N.T., 1/31/22, at 50. Officer
         Kinnel fell backwards off the front stoop and down four
         steps. He landed on the concrete sidewalk and hit his head
         on the metal leg of a picnic table. N.T., 1/31/22, at 51;
         Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1, Video A.

               Officer Kinnel reported that due to the punch and
         resultant fall, he was in pain, disoriented, and close to losing
         consciousness. N.T., 1/31/22, at 51-52. He was seeing
         spots and suffered cuts to the back of his head, his back,
         and his left elbow. He also had swelling to the left side of
         his face and his lip was cut. Another officer took Officer
         Kinnel to the hospital, where he was treated by Dr. Brenton
         Taggart.

                Dr. Taggart described Officer Kinnel as being confused
         and anxious upon arrival at the hospital. N.T., 2/1/22, at
         10. Officer Kinnel had an elevated heart rate, a headache,
         and back pain. Dr. Taggart observed a hematoma with an
         overlying abrasion on Officer Kinnel’s scalp, as well as a
         contusion on his lower back. Officer Kinnel underwent a CAT
         scan and was diagnosed with a concussion, which Dr.
         Taggart explained is “a head injury which results in a
         temporary alteration in brain function.” Id. at 11. Dr.
         Taggart testified that a concussion can result in significant
         and long-lasting symptoms, such as dizziness, headaches,
         nausea, and vision and memory problems. Officer Kinnel
         testified that, following the assault, he missed two weeks of
         work and, upon returning to work, he was often confused
         and disoriented during the next two weeks. N.T., 1/31/22,
         at 54-55. Further, he suffered from migraines, which
         included visual impairment, for approximately a month.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 2-4 (some citations omitted).

      Officers apprehended Santiago. A jury convicted him, and the trial court

sentenced him as described above. This timely appeal followed.

      Santiago raises one issue on appeal: “As to the charge of aggravated

assault . . . was the guilty verdict . . . based upon insufficient evidence, where

                                      -3-
J-S38037-22

[Officer Kinnel] was punched only once by [Santiago], causing the [officer] to

suffer a minor concussion?”3 Santiago’s Brief at 7.

       When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict

winner in order to determine whether the jury could have found every element

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Thomas, 215

A.3d 36, 40 (Pa. 2019). “Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be

resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive

that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined

circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 867 (Pa. Super.

2014) (en banc). Additionally, this Court cannot “re-weigh the evidence and

substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Id. This presents a pure

question of law and, as such, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope

of review is plenary. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065,

1076 (Pa. 2017).

       A person is guilty of aggravated assault to a designated individual if he

“intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury to any of

the officers, agents, employees, or other persons enumerated in subsection

(c) or to an employee of an agency, company or other entity engaged in public
____________________________________________

3 Our review of the record and, in particular, the video of this incident belies
Santiago’s framing of issue. By stating that he “punched [the officer] only
once,” Santiago downplays the severity of his conduct. Santiago’s Brief at 7.
In actuality, he not only punched Officer Kinnel. Santigo also shoved him from
the residence’s front porch, down a short flight of stairs, and caused the officer
to fall onto a concrete sidewalk and to hit his head on a metal picnic table.

                                           -4-
J-S38037-22

transportation, while in the performance of duty.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(2).

The “officers, agents, employees, and other persons referred to in subsection

(a) shall be as follows: (1) Police officer . . . .” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(c).

      Santiago contends that the Commonwealth did not prove that he caused

or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to Officer Kinnel, a police officer,

under Section (c), supra. Santiago believes that, as a matter of law, punching

someone once and concussing that individual does not satisfy the statutory

definition of “serious bodily injury.”   We disagree.

      The goal of statutory construction is to “effectuate the intention of the

General Assembly.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a). “When the words of a statute are

clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under

the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b). Thus, if a statute

is unambiguous, our review begins and ends with the statute itself.

      The General Assembly defined “serious bodily injury” 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. That statutory definition is clear

and unambiguous.

      The legislature’s use of the disjunctive “or” throughout the definition is

particularly important, because it divides the definition into three, separate

subparts. Those subparts, in turn, permit a finder of fact to convict someone

                                         -5-
J-S38037-22

of aggravated assault if one of three categories of harm results from an attack.

The three categories are:

      1.    Harm creating a substantial risk of death

      2.    Harm creating serious, permanent disfigurement or

      3.    Harm causing protracted loss or impairment of a bodily member

            or organ.

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301.

      Here, the jury heard evidence that a concussion, like the one Santiago

inflicted upon Officer Kinnel, falls within the third category.

      Officer Kinnel’s treating physician, Dr. Benton Taggart, testified that a

concussion is a bodily injury to the head causing “alteration in brain function.”

N.T., 2/1/22, at 11. He defined a concussion as “an injury to the brain that is

considered temporary in nature that causes impairment in brain function. But

the symptoms can be protracted and long-lasting.” Id. at 28.

      Dr. Taggart further explained that, “It was noted that at the time of the

incident that [Officer Kinnel] was confused, he did not remember the incident,

[and] he was dizzy. He was having visual changes - - that confusion is what

actually defines the concussion.”     Id. at 11-12.    It requires “symptomatic

treatment, whether nausea medication, pain medication, and sometimes you

need ongoing therapy afterwards as well.” Id. at 12.

      Dr. Taggart used concussed athletes as an example. He said, “we have

. . . sports injuries; they have to go through graded practices to kind of get

back into their normal routine, because concussions can affect the way you

                                      -6-
J-S38037-22

think. It can affect the way you move. They can cause a lot of significant

impairment, dizziness, memory functions, impairment functions, headaches,

vision, things like that.” Id. Moreover, there are “potential long-term effects

of a concussion . . . [including] memory effects, visual effects, chronic

headaches, [and] chronic nausea.”      Id. at 12-13. “It could be inability to

concentrate . . . Just inability to go about your daily activities as you’re used

to.” Id. at 13.

      According to Dr. Taggart, the average healing time for a concussion is

“about one to two weeks.” Id. However, sometimes headaches and migraines

following a concussion may last “potentially indefinitely.” Id.

      Thus, the doctor’s testimony, standing alone, was a sufficient basis from

which a reasonable jury could find that, by concussing Officer Kinnel, Santiago

inflicted bodily injury that caused “impairment of the function of any . . .

organ,” i.e., the officer’s brain. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. By altering the function

of Officer Kinnel’s brain functions, Santiago impaired that organ.

      Additionally, Officer Kinnel missed two weeks of work due to the assault

and resulting concussion. After returning to work, he was often confused and

disoriented for the next two weeks. See N.T., 1/31/22, at 54-55. Lastly, the

officer had migraines and visual impairment for approximately a month after

the incident. Id. at 57. Hence, the officer’s testimony served as further proof

of the impaired brain functions that Santiago’s assault caused.

      Indeed, this Court reached identical results in similar, non-precedential

cases. See Commonwealth v. McDowell, 2020 WL 3606390, *2, *5 (Pa.

                                      -7-
J-S38037-22

Super. July 2, 2020) (unpublished) (finding sufficient proof of serious bodily

injury where victim suffered bruising, head wound, and a concussion and was

unable to work or drive for several months); see also Commonwealth v.

Hanna, 2019 WL 6652177, *3 (Pa. Super. Dec. 6, 2019) (unpublished)

(finding sufficient proof of serious bodily injury where victim suffered a

concussion). These decisions are persuasive.4

       We adopt the holdings of McDowell and Hanna: concussing someone

during an assault is sufficient evidence of “serious bodily injury” under 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 2301, as a matter of law. Hence, the trial court rightly submitted

the case of aggravated assault to the jury, because the Commonwealth

presented sufficient evidence that Santiago inflicted serious bodily injury upon

Officer Kinnel.

       Of course, whether an alleged victim actually suffered a concussion is a

factual question reserved for the finder of fact. Here, the jury credited Officer

Kinnel’s and Dr. Taggart’s testimony and found, as a matter of fact, that

Santiago concussed Officer Kinnel by punching the officer in the head.

       Santiago’s claim of error is meritless.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 “Non-precedential decisions [of this Court, filed after May 1, 2019,] may be
cited for their persuasive value.” Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(2).

                                           -8-
J-S38037-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2023

                          -9-