Court Opinion

ID: 9645637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:30:35.15069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:28.647870
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I dissent from the majority’s determination that the appellant is not guilty of recklessly endangering another person.
In the instant case, we have an accounting of a 12 year old girl who was accosted in broad daylight by an adult male in front of her home. Appellant grabbed the child’s arm, restrained her movement, and carried her off into a nearby cellar. The assailant then ordered the child to prop herself up on a chair and, upon doing so, moved his hands under her skirt, up her leg, and touched her genital organs. Appellant thereafter started to remove his slacks. The victim reacted by kicking appellant in the groin, thus foiling his obvious intentions. Appellant retaliated by striking the child in the face.
Here, we have a situation in which: (1) an assault was made on the victim; (2) the assailant was larger and stronger than the victim; and (3) appellant was restrained from consummating and/or escalating his attack by the actions of a courageous 12 year old child. The assault plus the attendant circumstances, in this writer’s viewpoint, were sufficient to prove guilt of recklessly endangering another person. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Alexander, 477 Pa. 190, 194, 383 *119A.2d 887, 889 (1978) (“A simple assault combined with other circumstances may, in a proper case, be sufficient to support a finding that an assailant attempted to inflict serious bodily injury . . .”); Accord Commonwealth v. Kibe, 258 Pa.Super. 353, 392 A.2d 831 (1978).
Moreover, I must voice my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that appellant was not guilty of recklessly endangering another person because “[w]e are unable to conclude that any of Moody’s actions, forcing Johnson into the basement, striking her while he attempted to leave the basement, or touching her body in a vulgar and offensive manner placed the [victim] in sufficient physical danger . . . . ” At 374. The majority’s argument ignores the language of the statute which states that an offense of recklessly endangering another person is committed where the actions of the accused “place[ ] or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705. (Emphasis added). To accept the majority’s conclusion that the victim was not “placed ... in sufficient physical danger”, at 374, is to minimize the actual and potential danger that this 12 year old was exposed to by this adult male’s repulsive actions.
Hence my dissent.