Com. v. Howard, L.
Com. v. Howard, L. No. 1275 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- On Jan 24, 2015, police responded to a 9-1-1 tip and located Robert L. Howard in a high-crime area; officers asked to speak and requested ID.
- Sergeant Marcia Cole testified Howard reached toward his pants when asked for ID; she attempted a pat-down and then grabbed his jacket when he began to move away.
- A scuffle ensued: Cole said Howard dragged her, shoved her into the street, she deployed a taser (no contact), Howard grabbed her taser, and officers tackled and handcuffed him. Cole’s middle right finger was later diagnosed as sprained.
- Howard denied using force, claimed he was trying to move away and retrieve his ID, and said he did not kick, hit, or punch officers.
- Pretrial, the court found the arresting officers lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause for arrest; the resisting-arrest charge was quashed and suppressed, but aggravated-assault and disarming-officer charges proceeded and were later dismissed by the jury; the jury convicted Howard of simple assault.
- Trial court sentenced Howard to 1–2 years; Howard appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence for simple assault and erroneous exclusion of evidence that the resisting-arrest charge was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701) | Commonwealth: testimony from Sgt. Cole and Officer Biricocchi showed Howard intentionally/knowingly/recklessly caused bodily injury to Cole. | Howard: denied intentionally causing injury; claimed he merely moved away to get his ID and did not use force. | Court: Evidence, viewed in favor of the Commonwealth, was sufficient for simple assault; jury could credit officers’ testimony. |
| Admissibility: relevance of dismissed resisting-arrest charge | Commonwealth: dismissal of resisting-arrest charge is irrelevant to whether Howard used physical force against officers in the pending charges. | Howard: dismissal of resisting-arrest charge (based on unlawful arrest) was relevant because resisting an unlawful arrest without force is lawful. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding evidence of the dismissed charge; legality of arrest was not relevant to whether Howard used force, and physical resistance to arrest is not justified even if arrest is unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (appellate standard for reviewing sufficiency claims)
- Commonwealth v. Pettyjohn, 64 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2013) (evidentiary sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (credibility determinations lie with jury)
- Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2010) (jury credibility deference)
- Commonwealth v. Semenza, 127 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Biagini, 655 A.2d 492 (Pa. 1995) (physical resistance to arrest is not justified even if arrest is unlawful)