Com. v. Scott, D.
Com. v. Scott, D. No. 464 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 11, 2017Background
- On August 25, 2015, Kristin Huey (three months pregnant) and Dustin Scott returned to Scott’s apartment after he had taken bath salts; an argument ensued and Scott punched Huey once in the jaw. Huey suffered a comminuted, open fracture requiring surgical open reduction and fixation and nine weeks with her jaw wired shut.
- Commonwealth charged Scott with aggravated assault, simple assault, and harassment; at trial Scott admitted striking Huey and admitted ingesting bath salts but testified he lacked the mens rea for aggravated assault.
- During cross-examination the Commonwealth questioned Scott about the source (name) of the bath salts; Scott refused to name the dealer. The Commonwealth also questioned his state of mind (paranoia) from drug use.
- Scott requested jury instructions on (a) other/uncharged bad acts limiting instruction, (b) that a single blow is insufficient for aggravated assault, and (c) assault by mutual consent; the court denied some requests. Scott was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault and sentenced to 7–14 years. He appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of aggravated assault (recklessness/extreme indifference), concluding some trial errors (questioning about dealer and denial of a limiting instruction) were abused but harmless, and finding other claims waived or without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict of aggravated assault | Evidence (serious injury + recklessness/extreme indifference) supports conviction | Single punch lacks requisite mens rea for aggravated assault | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; jury could find Scott acted recklessly and showed extreme indifference given size/strength disparity and severity of injury |
| Jury instruction that a single blow is insufficient | Trial court adequately instructed on elements and mental states; defendant's proposed language incomplete/confusing | Trial court should have instructed that a single blow, by itself, cannot establish aggravated assault | Denied: court properly refused the incomplete requested instruction; instructions as a whole were adequate |
| Admission and questioning about drug dealer name and paranoia | Questions showed context (drug ingestion) and were minimally prejudicial | Questions about dealer and alleged paranoia were irrelevant and prejudicial | Mixed: overruling objection to dealer’s name was an abuse of discretion but harmless; paranoia relevancy claim waived for failure to object on that ground |
| Failure to give limiting instruction on other bad acts (Pa.R.Evid. 404(b)) | No reason to deny because defendant testified and context made issue minimal | Requested limiting instruction was required when other bad acts evidence was admitted | Error to refuse limiting instruction (defendant has right to it), but error was harmless given other strong evidence of guilt |
| Failure to instruct on assault by mutual consent | Not explicitly argued by Commonwealth | Jury should have been instructed on assault by mutual consent because evidence supported it | Waived: Scott failed to develop argument on appeal; issue not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency)
- Ansell v. Commonwealth, 143 A.3d 944 (Pa. Super. 2016) (sufficiency review and inferences)
- Burton v. Commonwealth, 2 A.3d 598 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc) (abrogated single-blow rule; recklessness/extreme indifference can satisfy mental state)
- Alexander v. Commonwealth, 383 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1978) (size/strength disparity relevant to recklessness analysis)
- Roane v. Commonwealth, 142 A.3d 79 (Pa. Super. 2016) (jury charge review standard)
- Pressley v. Commonwealth, 887 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2005) (preservation requirements for jury-charge objections)