Com. v. Hargrove, D., Com. v. Hargrove, D. No. 2218 EDA 2015

On June 25, 2014, Darius Hargrove (age ~40) entered 90‑year‑old Robert Mack’s foyer after Mack told neighborhood children (including Hargrove’s) to go home; an altercation followed.
Witnesses and police observed Mack bleeding from a large head gash; neighbors aided Mack and EMS transported him to the hospital; officers found Hargrove nearby and arrested him; Hargrove had no observable injuries.
Hargrove was tried by jury (Feb. 12–17, 2015) and convicted of aggravated assault (merged counts), possession of an instrument of crime (a cane), and recklessly endangering another person; simple assault was withdrawn. Sentence: 3–10 years’ state imprisonment + 15 years’ county probation (after vacatur of one count).
On appeal Hargrove argued insufficiency of the evidence and that he acted in self‑defense; he filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement but did not specify which elements were allegedly unsupported.
The Superior Court held the sufficiency and self‑defense/weight arguments were waived for inadequate preservation, and alternatively affirmed on the merits, finding the evidence supported intent, weapon use, and creation of danger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Commonwealth: evidence (victim, neighbors, photos, police) proved assault, PIC, REAP beyond reasonable doubt	Hargrove: evidence insufficient to prove elements; alternatively acted in self‑defense	Waived for failure to specify elements in 1925(b); alternatively, court affirmed — evidence sufficient to support convictions
Self‑defense justification	Commonwealth: no reasonable belief of necessity; defendant was aggressor	Hargrove: acted to defend himself after provocation by victim	Waived as weight claim if asserted as such; on merits court found no credible evidence of reasonable belief or necessity — self‑defense rejected
Possessing an instrument of crime (§ 907)	Commonwealth: cane was used criminally to assault — intent and improper use proven	Hargrove: cane is not per se a weapon and had lawful purpose	Court: evidence showed Hargrove ripped cane from Mack and used it to beat him — elements satisfied
Recklessly endangering another person (§ 2705)	Commonwealth: conduct placed elderly victim in danger of serious bodily injury	Hargrove: conduct did not meet reckless endangerment threshold	Court: evidence of dragging, repeated head strikes, and profuse bleeding supported REAP; conviction supported

Commonwealth v. Mauz, 122 A.3d 1039 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency claims)
Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review principles)
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requirement to preserve sufficiency argument in 1925(b))
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (waiver where 1925(b) lacks element specificity)
Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2007) (same preservation principles)
Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2012) (preservation requirement for weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factfinder may credit or reject evidence; sufficiency standard)
Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980 (Pa. Super. 2013) (aggravated assault intent and totality of circumstances test)
Commonwealth v. Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2006) (aggravated assault intent guidance)
Commonwealth v. Gladden, 665 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 1995) (elements of PIC offense)
Commonwealth v. Correa, 648 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. 1994) (PIC analysis)
Commonwealth v. Meekins, 644 A.2d 765 (Pa. Super. 1994) (PIC elements)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 503 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. 1985) (definition of reckless endangerment)
Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 395 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. 1978) (reckless endangerment requires creation of danger)