Com. v. Thach, D., 3024 EDA 2014

On January 20, 2013, victim Thuong Damh was assaulted at a house party; he suffered a skull fracture after being struck in the back of the head and required surgery and a week-long medically induced unconscious state.
Several people were present: Appellant Dung Thach (standing behind victim), Thuong (standing in front), Thai (to victim’s right), and others; after the head blow the victim was further kicked and beaten.
Police recovered the victim’s knit cap from the house; the victim identified Appellant as the person who struck him from behind, though he testified he did not see the blow.
Appellant was arrested and tried by the court (waived jury) and convicted of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, terroristic threats, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.
Trial court sentenced Appellant to 4–8 years (aggravated assault) plus 2–4 years consecutive (conspiracy). Post-sentence motions were denied; Appellant appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions	Commonwealth: evidence (victim ID, positioning, subsequent attack) suffices to prove Appellant struck victim from behind and participated in attack	Thach: victim couldn’t see the blow; Commonwealth failed to prove Appellant struck the head or conspired with others	Court: Appellant waived specificity in 1925(b) but on merits evidence supported inference Appellant delivered the blow and joined the assault; convictions affirmed

Commonwealth v. Mauz, 122 A.3d 1039 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review principles)
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa. Super. 2015) (preservation rules for sufficiency claims and Rule 1925(b) requirements)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement)
Commonwealth v. Flores, 921 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2007) (same)