Com. v. Burke, P., 1636 EDA 2015

In May 2014, after an argument at home, Burke assaulted his wife: punching her repeatedly, head-butting, choking, striking her torso, and later holding a 12-inch chef’s knife over her and placing it near her heart. The victim drove to the police station and was hospitalized with a fractured nose and multiple abrasions, lacerations, and bruises.
A jury convicted Burke of aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and harassment. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 8½ to 17 years.
Burke filed post-sentence motions; they were denied. He appealed, raising issues about refusal to instruct on self-defense, application of a deadly-weapon sentencing enhancement, adequacy of reasons for an aggravated-range sentence, and sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault.
At trial Burke testified and claimed the victim’s injuries resulted from falls and a falling fan/items, denying he struck, choked, or threatened her with a knife; he admitted only ripping her shirt.
The trial court declined to give a self-defense instruction, applied the deadly-weapon enhancement based on the knife/threats, and explained on the record its reasons for imposing an aggravated-range sentence (criminal history, lack of remorse, victim’s injuries, and the jury’s verdict).

Issue	Burke's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction	Evidence showed self-defense warranted an instruction	Burke presented no evidence of defensive force; his theory was accidental injury from falls/items	No error — self-defense inapplicable because defense denied using force and blamed accidents
Whether deadly-weapon enhancement was improperly applied to aggravated-assault sentence	Enhancement improper because Burke did not use a deadly weapon during the assault	Court: Burke held a 12-inch chef’s knife, threatened to kill, placed knife near victim’s heart — qualifies as deadly weapon for enhancement	Affirmed — enhancement properly applied based on knife and threats
Whether trial court failed to state adequate reasons for aggravated-range sentence	Court did not sufficiently state reasons on the record	Court relied on PSI, trial observation, criminal record, lack of remorse, victim testimony, and jury verdict	Affirmed — trial court provided adequate reasons for aggravated-range sentence
Whether evidence was insufficient to support aggravated-assault conviction	Victim’s injuries not caused or attempted to be caused by Burke; insufficient to show attempt to cause serious bodily injury	Victim’s testimony and injuries established punches, head-butt, choking, and serious injuries sufficient for aggravated assault	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove attempt to cause serious bodily injury

Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for when jury instructions are supported by the record)
Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (self-defense burden and when issue is properly raised)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (when an appellant raises a substantial question on sentencing)
Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (deadly-weapon enhancement presents a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (claim that court failed to state reasons for aggravated-range sentence raises a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (definition of attempt for aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (aggravated assault statutory elements)
Commonwealth v. Ali, 112 A.3d 1210 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sentence enhancements and jury findings post-Alleyne)