Com. v. Dawson, A., Com. v. Dawson, A. No. 2251 EDA 2015

On June 8, 2012, Dawson went to the complainant’s home to see their three‑month‑old son; an argument ensued and Dawson began physically assaulting the complainant.
The assault included repeated punches, dragging by the hair into a bathroom, choking, biting on the neck, a cut to the ear, threats to kill her, and coerced vaginal intercourse.
The complainant sent a text for help; police were called and arrested Dawson.
A sexual assault nurse examiner observed swelling, bruising, erythema, lacerations, abrasions, and tenderness across the complainant’s face, neck, chest, back, and extremities and sent her to the ER.
A jury convicted Dawson of simple assault and aggravated assault on March 13, 2015; he was sentenced to 6 to 15 years’ imprisonment on July 13, 2015.
On appeal Dawson initially failed to specify sufficiency grounds in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; the court remanded for a proper statement, but the trial court and this Court found his sufficiency claim waived for lack of specificity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1))	Commonwealth: evidence (victim testimony, nurse examiner findings, visible injuries, threats, physical conduct) supports finding of intent/serious bodily injury or attempt thereto.	Dawson: injuries did not amount to "serious bodily injury" or substantial risk of death; this was an "unpleasant confrontation," not extreme indifference.	Court: claim waived for inadequate 1925(b) specificity; on merits, evidence was sufficient for aggravated assault—jury reasonably found attempt/intention to cause serious bodily injury.
Waiver under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)	Commonwealth: issues not preserved if appellant fails to specify elements challenged.	Dawson: submitted a general insufficiency statement; later filed after remand but did not specify elements.	Court: Dawson’s original and remanded 1925(b) statement failed to identify specific elements; sufficiency claim waived.

Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to jury verdict)
Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (sufficiency review principles)
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (Rule 1925(b) must specify the element(s) claimed insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (failure to specify elements in 1925(b) statement results in waiver)