Com. v. Smith, J., Com. v. Smith, J. No. 593 EDA 2016

Defendant Jeffrey P. Smith, Jr. (age 28) was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault for a December 2014 beating of his 53‑year‑old father that fractured the father’s left forearm and required surgery and ongoing therapy.
At trial Smith admitted assaulting his father but claimed fewer blows and a frying pan rather than the victim’s described object; he did not claim he acted to defend his mother.
Smith testified at sentencing that his father had previously abused the family; the PSI confirmed multiple prior domestic‑disturbance calls involving the household.
On cross‑examination and recall the Commonwealth elicited testimony that Smith told officers about a firearm on the deck but did not mention it in the squad car after his arrest; Smith moved for a mistrial alleging impermissible use of post‑Miranda silence.
The trial court sentenced Smith to 5–10 years’ incarceration (aggravated‑range); Smith’s post‑sentence motion was denied and he appealed, raising the mistrial issue and a discretionary‑sentencing challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether the Commonwealth’s questioning about defendant’s post‑arrest silence required a mistrial	The questioning responded fairly to Smith’s testimony that he told officers about a gun both on the deck and in the squad car; recalling the trooper was proper rebuttal	The trooper’s statement that Smith did not mention the gun in the squad car impermissibly used Smith’s post‑Miranda silence against him and warranted a mistrial	Denied. Court found Smith “opened the door” by testifying about telling officers and held the recall was fair rebuttal; any error would be harmless given the record
Whether the aggravated‑range sentence was an abuse of discretion / clearly unreasonable	The sentence was supported by severity of injuries, prolonged treatment, lack of remorse, threatening statements, prison misconduct, and family dysfunction; court adequately explained aggravated‑range reasons on the record	The 5–10 year aggravated‑range sentence was excessive and unsupported by sufficient aggravating circumstances; county sentence recommended in PSI should have been followed	Denied. Court’s sentencing rationale was supported by the record; no abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 719 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1998) (post‑Miranda silence may not be used against a defendant but prosecutor may fairly respond to defense testimony)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344 (Pa. 1999) (harmless‑error framework for assessing prejudicial trial errors)
Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 811 A.2d 556 (Pa. 2002) (discussion of harmless error and prejudice standard)
Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 617 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 1992) (mistrial is extreme remedy; granted only when defendant deprived of fair trial)
Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 512 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1986) (same principle on mistrial scope)
Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 480 A.2d 980 (Pa. 1984) (mistrial standard)
Commonwealth v. Cottam, 616 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 1992) (trial court’s mistrial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for mistrial review)
Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843 (Pa. Super. 2006) (claims a court failed to consider mitigating factors when imposing aggravated‑range sentence can present a substantial question)
Commonwealth v. Hoch, 936 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural posture for discretionary‑sentencing challenges)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (what constitutes a substantial question for appellate review of sentence)