Com. v. Shadding, A.
Com. v. Shadding, A. No. 948 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- In December 2014 Annette Shadding approached Neshea Jackson (walking with children) and struck her with an unidentified object, resulting in head trauma and a broken shoulder requiring surgery and physical therapy.
- Police arrived; Jackson had visible injuries and identified Shadding; Shadding initially lied about her identity and showed no visible injuries or arm brace.
- Shadding was charged with aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person; convicted of simple assault and REAP after a bench trial and sentenced to four years’ probation.
- At trial Shadding testified she was attacked by Jackson and claimed limited use of an arm (from a prior accident) that was in a brace zipped into her jacket, asserting self-defense.
- The Commonwealth introduced Jackson’s corroborating testimony, medical records, photographs, and officer testimony contradicting Shadding’s account; defense credibility was undermined by stipulated crimen falsi convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to disprove Shadding’s claim of self-defense and support convictions for simple assault and REAP | Commonwealth: evidence (victim testimony, medical records, officers’ observations) disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Shadding: she acted in self-defense because Jackson attacked first and Shadding’s injured arm limited her ability to respond | Court: Affirmed — Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to rebut self-defense and show force was excessive/unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cutts, 421 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 1980) (non-deadly self-defense prohibits excessive response)
- Commonwealth v. Witherspoon, 730 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 1999) (force against unarmed assailant cannot be excessive to claim self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (Commonwealth must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt; disbelief alone insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 823 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. 2003) (retail theft is crimen falsi and admissible to attack credibility)