Com. v. Padilla, A., 1463 MDA 2020

On August 2, 2019, Adrian Padilla slapped his girlfriend in Reading, PA; a teenage bystander (Kai Jackson) and his grandmother intervened. Padilla told the teen not to get involved and said he would "pull this out" / "pull this cannon out" while reaching toward his waistband. The teen retreated to a nearby church.
Padilla was charged with and convicted (jury verdict for simple assault; bench findings for harassment and disorderly conduct). The court imposed a split sentence (3–6 months incarceration; 18 months probation) on September 28, 2020.
Padilla filed a post-sentence motion which was denied; he appealed raising three primary issues: sufficiency of the evidence for simple assault by physical menace, weight of the evidence, and a Confrontation Clause challenge to witnesses testifying while wearing COVID masks.
At trial, two prosecution witnesses (the teen and his grandmother) testified in person while wearing masks; defense counsel expressed a preference that witnesses unmask but did not timely assert a constitutional Confrontation Clause objection until after resting.
The trial court and this Court rejected Padilla’s sufficiency and confrontation arguments (the latter was deemed waived for lack of timely, specific objection); the weight claim was found waived for failure to adequately preserve it in the concise statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: simple assault by physical menace (18 Pa.C.S. §2701(a)(3))	Words + reaching to waistband constituted a physical menace; victim reasonably feared imminent serious bodily injury and withdrew.	No gun was produced (only pepper spray); statement ambiguous and amounted to words, not a specific intent to create fear of serious bodily injury (analogous to Fry).	Conviction affirmed. Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, action plus verbal threat supported a finding of physical menace.
Weight of the evidence	Victim testimony was credible; verdicts not against weight.	Verdicts were against the weight based on witness inconsistencies and lack of physical attack.	Waived on appeal for failure to provide an adequate, specific Rule 1925(b) statement; not reached on the merits.
Confrontation Clause (witnesses testifying masked)	Masked, in‑person testimony preserved confrontation guarantees: witnesses under oath, subject to cross‑examination, demeanor observable; masks were necessary for public health.	Masking blocked face‑to‑face confrontation; mouth/nose are expressive—denied Sixth Amendment and PA Const. art. I, § 9 rights.	Waived for failure to make a timely, specific constitutional objection at trial. Even if preserved, court held masking did not violate confrontation rights given public‑health necessity and that core confrontation features remained.

Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight review standards)
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa.Super. 2003) (pointing a gun can constitute simple assault by physical menace)
Commonwealth v. Fry, 491 A.2d 843 (Pa.Super. 1985) (non‑threatening physical contact without a threat of serious bodily injury insufficient for §2701(a)(3))
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (face‑to‑face confrontation is not absolute; exceptions allowed where necessary to further an important state interest)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 250 A.3d 1209 (Pa. 2021) (guidance on Rule 1925(b) concise statement and preservation of weight claims)