Com. v. Freeman, H.
Com. v. Freeman, H. No. 1060 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Victim Molly Wilwol returned home Nov. 24, 2013; ex-boyfriend Hilton Freeman came to return belongings and was let into the house.
- While the victim showered, Freeman angrily entered, punched through the glass shower pane, shattering it and ripping down the curtain.
- Freeman blocked the victim from leaving the shower, then later picked her up by her jacket pockets and threw her to the floor; he covered her mouth and prevented her from leaving until he ran out.
- Police observed wet clothing, bare feet, shattered glass in the bathroom, and photographs of the scene were taken; victim reported pain but refused an ambulance.
- Freeman was later located (August 2015) after using aliases; following a non-jury trial he was convicted of two counts of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1) and (a)(3)), one count of criminal mischief, and one count of harassment.
- Court sentenced Freeman to consecutive terms for the two simple-assault convictions; post-sentence motions denied and Freeman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence supported conviction for simple assault (attempt to cause bodily injury) | Commonwealth: physical force (lifting/throwing) by a 225-lb man supports intent to cause bodily injury | Freeman: no actual bodily injury occurred, so insufficient evidence of attempt to cause bodily injury | Held: Evidence sufficient; intent may be inferred from conduct (225-lb man lifting/throwing victim) despite lack of actual injury |
| Sufficiency: whether evidence supported conviction for simple assault by physical menace (intent to put in fear of imminent serious bodily injury) | Commonwealth: punching through shower, shouting, blocking exit, following victim established intent to cause fear | Freeman: victim did not testify she feared serious bodily injury | Held: Evidence sufficient; intent to place victim in fear can be inferred from menacing conduct; actual fear unnecessary |
| Merger at sentencing: whether two simple-assault convictions should merge | Freeman: both convictions arise from single criminal act with same goal (intimidation); elements overlap so sentences must merge | Commonwealth: (did not address element overlap); trial court: offenses arose from distinct acts | Held: No merger; convictions arose from two distinct criminal acts (separate assaultive acts in different locations by different methods) so separate sentences lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 2007) (plenary review for legality of sentence; merger is non-waivable)
- Commonwealth v. Britton, 134 A.3d 83 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review on sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Klein, 795 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to inflict bodily injury may be inferred from conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for simple assault by physical menace; intent may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Petterson, 49 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinct criminal acts do not merge for sentencing purposes)