Com. v. Bradley Davis, T.
1135 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Around 1:30 a.m., an eyewitness saw three men cross the street, heckle, then assault two victims (George Williams and Jack Corbin) by punching and repeatedly kicking them, including while victims were collapsed.
- The eyewitness identified Davis (Appellant) at the scene as one of the assailants and again at trial; Williams also identified Davis at trial (though a stipulation noted Williams could not identify Davis at the preliminary hearing).
- Victims sustained serious facial and head injuries: Corbin suffered multiple facial fractures; Williams had a broken mandible and a head laceration with lasting speech/pain effects.
- Officers found victims unconscious and covered in trash and blood; Davis was located at a nearby residence with blood on the sole of a boot and gave conflicting statements to police about his involvement.
- A jury convicted Davis of two counts each of aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury) and simple assault; Davis was sentenced to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years’ incarceration.
- Davis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of his participation and intent to cause serious bodily injury; the trial court denied post-sentence relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: participation in assault (principal/accomplice/co-conspirator) | Eyewitness and victim IDs, defendant seen at scene, physical evidence link him to assault | Evidence insufficient to prove Davis participated in the assault | Court held evidence sufficient to prove participation; convictions affirmed |
| Sufficiency: intent to cause serious bodily injury | Serious injuries, repeated kicks/punches (including while victims down) permit inference of intent | No direct proof of specific intent to cause serious bodily injury | Court held circumstantial evidence supported inference of intent; attempt element satisfied |
| Post-sentence motion denial | Commonwealth argued trial evidence supported verdicts | Davis argued denial improper because evidence was insufficient (reiterated prior claims) | Court found issue waived for lack of argument and, on merits, would fail because evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (attempt to cause serious bodily injury defined by substantial step toward injury)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008) (intent to cause serious bodily injury may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 673 A.2d 962 (Pa. Super. 1996) (intent inferred from punching and kicking lone victim while on ground)
- Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate waiver for failure to develop argument)