122 A.3d 1135
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Appellant John Pino led police on a high-speed pursuit after retail theft; his car ran over a spike strip and later became stuck on a concrete median.
- Officers boxed the vehicle; Officer Hand approached, ordered Pino to stop, grabbed Pino by the shirt, and was two feet from the open driver’s window.
- Pino moved the gear shift, drove forward into Hand’s police car (while Hand still held him), then reversed into Chief Carey’s cruiser, injuring Carey, and later drove toward Trooper Allar causing Allar to jump out of the way.
- A jury convicted Pino of multiple counts, including three counts of aggravated assault of a police officer under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3).
- Pino appealed, arguing (1) the evidence showed at most recklessness—not the specific intent required for aggravated assault, and (2) he should have been charged under the more specific aggravated assault by vehicle statute (75 Pa.C.S. § 3732.1).
- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, rejecting the sufficiency challenge and finding the statutory-choice issue waived and foreclosed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9303 and precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (intent) | Commonwealth: evidence of driving into and backing into officers/cars permitted inference of specific intent to cause bodily injury | Pino: his conduct was only to flee/avoid capture — at most reckless, not specific intent to injure | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, a jury could infer specific intent to cause injury; sufficiency claim fails |
| Whether charge was improper because a specific vehicle statute applied | Commonwealth: may prosecute under all applicable statutes | Pino: aggravated assault (general) should yield to specific aggravated assault by vehicle statute | Waived and meritless: claim forfeited on appeal; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9303 permits prosecution under multiple statutes, so charging was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Roche, 783 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2001) (intent may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (resisting arrest and violent acts can support inference of intent to injure under § 2702(a)(3))
- Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Commonwealth need only prove attempt to inflict injury; actual injury not required)
- Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2013) (42 Pa.C.S. § 9303 allows prosecution under multiple statutes despite general-vs-specific rule)