Com. v. Brower, J.
1132 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- On June 8, 2013, Jeremiah Brower confronted his brother at their mother’s house, swung at him, and then picked up a boiling frying pan of sausage/grease and poured it onto the brother, causing severe burns with permanent scarring and ongoing pain. The brother’s wife received minor burns.
- Brower was tried non-jury; the trial court convicted him of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1)) for causing serious bodily injury.
- At sentencing the court imposed an aggravated-range term of 84 to 168 months’ imprisonment (7–14 years). The court emphasized the severity of the injuries and Brower’s extensive prior criminal history and probation violations.
- Brower filed post-sentence motions raising sufficiency and weight challenges and moved to reconsider sentence; he appealed after motions were denied.
- Brower argued (1) the Commonwealth failed to prove he acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life (element of aggravated assault), and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an aggravated-range sentence based on prior criminal history and by failing to consider mitigating factors (e.g., mental health, family fight, remorse).
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault and concluded the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion (trial court had PSI, considered factors, and permissibly relied on criminal history and offense severity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Brower) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence proved Brower acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life for aggravated assault | Evidence showed Brower grabbed a boiling pan and poured it on the victim, causing serious, permanent injuries—satisfies reckless/manifest extreme indifference element | Brower argued Commonwealth failed to prove recklessness/extreme indifference required for aggravated assault | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, dumping boiling grease that caused permanent scarring was sufficient to prove serious bodily injury and reckless conduct manifesting extreme indifference |
| Discretionary sentencing: whether trial court abused discretion by imposing aggravated-range sentence and failing to consider mitigating factors | Sentencing court properly considered PSI, offense severity, rehabilitation prospects and public protection; aggravated range justified given injuries and extensive criminal history | Brower argued court relied impermissibly on prior criminal history and ignored mitigating factors (mental health, family fight, remorse) | Affirmed: part of reliance on criminal history was preserved; Brower waived specific challenge to using prior record; court had PSI and expressly considered mitigating factors but reasonably exercised discretion to impose aggravated range |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
- King v. Commonwealth, 731 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1999) (malice/recklessness and extreme indifference analysis)
- Moury v. Commonwealth, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and four-part test for discretionary sentencing review)
- Devers v. Commonwealth, 519 Pa. 88, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and defendant’s character/mitigating factors)
- Hyland v. Commonwealth, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentencing court imposed aggravated-range sentence without considering mitigating circumstances raises substantial question)