Com. v. Kelly, N., Com. v. Kelly, N. No. 1411 EDA 2016

On Sept. 13, 2013, Latoya Johnson (complainant) was intoxicated and was stabbed during an altercation with Nicole Kelly (appellant); Johnson required emergency surgery for multiple stab wounds.
Medical records showed fourteen stab wounds to Johnson’s arms, face, chest, and torso; surgery was performed at Temple University Health Systems.
Police found Kelly shortly after, covered in blood, with a ~6-inch-bladed knife in her purse; she had a cut on her hand and was taken to the hospital after arrest.
At trial Kelly testified she acted in self-defense after Johnson was maced and then attacked her; Kelly admitted stabbing Johnson in the side 5–6 times and acknowledged Johnson was unarmed.
The court found Kelly’s testimony incredible in light of the medical records, her flight from the scene, and her attempt to bribe police; Kelly was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault, PIC, simple assault, and REAP and sentenced to 10–20 years.
Post-sentence relief was denied; Kelly appealed arguing (1) insufficiency due to failure to disprove self-defense, and (2) weight of the evidence.

Issue	Kelly's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was insufficient because self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt	Kelly argued the Commonwealth failed to disprove her self-defense claim; trial court relied on credibility instead of considering complainant intoxication and missing mace	Commonwealth relied on medical records, Kelly’s admissions (Johnson unarmed), flight from scene, and attempted bribery to show self-defense was negated	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to disprove self-defense and support aggravated assault conviction
Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Kelly argued Johnson’s heavy intoxication and lack of mace recovery made Johnson’s testimony unreliable and favored Kelly’s self-defense story	Commonwealth argued credibility determinations and factual conflicts (medical records vs. Kelly’s account), plus flight/bribery, were proper bases for conviction	Affirmed: trial court did not palpably abuse discretion; weight claim denied

Commonwealth v. Reese, 156 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Patrick, 933 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2007) (serious bodily injury and recklessness for aggravated assault)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements for disproving self-defense)
Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1996) (flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2001) (distinguished; factual dissimilarity regarding missing weapon and credibility)
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (factfinder may accept or reject witness testimony)
Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for appellate review of weight claims)
Commonwealth v. Manchas, 633 A.2d 618 (Pa. Super. 1993) (motive not an essential element)