Com. v. Harnish, Z.
477 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- On October 10, 2014, a vehicle exchange between estranged spouses Joshua and Lacey Zimmerman in a parking lot escalated into a physical confrontation.
- Joshua arrived with friends including Appellant Zachary Harnish and his cousin Apache Gettle; Lacey arrived with Peter Petrosky.
- During the dispute, Harnish, Gettle, and others separated Petrosky from Joshua and collectively punched and kicked Petrosky; Harnish tackled and held Petrosky to the ground.
- Petrosky sustained a cut finger and a swollen eye and was treated in the emergency room; knives were also produced during the incident.
- A jury convicted Harnish of Conspiracy to Commit Simple Assault; the trial court sentenced him to 3 to 23 months (credit for time served).
- On appeal Harnish challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting the Commonwealth failed to prove agreement and intent to promote or facilitate Simple Assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Conspiracy to Commit Simple Assault | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (arrival in group, "show of force," collective assault, overt acts) established intent, agreement, and overt act | Harnish: evidence insufficient to prove he agreed with others to commit Simple Assault or had requisite intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, jury could infer agreement, intent, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (evidence reviewed in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (elements of conspiracy: intent, agreement, overt act)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Klein, 795 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Simple Assault may be based on attempt to inflict bodily injury; intent can be inferred)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 848 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2004) (evidence will be disturbed only if so weak that no fact-finding probability can be drawn)