Com. v. Thomas, T.
Com. v. Thomas, T. No. 828 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- On April 7, 2015, appellant Taariq Thomas struck Jonathan Brown at least twice in the head with a baseball bat in an Allentown apartment; Brown sustained a fractured skull, brain bleeding, and permanent cognitive impairment.
- Thomas admitted to police he hit Brown and gave a recorded statement claiming he acted to protect his girlfriend, Chelsea O’Toole, who he said was being grabbed in a "bear hug."
- O’Toole testified at trial that she did not invite Brown, but that Brown said he "came to chill," that she was not in a bear hug or within Brown’s reach, and that Brown was unarmed; she had given inconsistent statements to police earlier.
- A jury convicted Thomas of aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. The court sentenced him to 6 to 20 years’ imprisonment (within guideline range).
- Thomas appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence because he acted in defense of another, (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and (3) the sentence’s discretionary aspects were unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence disproved defense-of-others claim | Commonwealth argued evidence (victim unarmed, O’Toole testimony that she was not threatened, and Thomas’s admitted strikes) allowed jury to reject justification | Thomas argued he reasonably believed O’Toole was in danger and acted to protect her; O’Toole’s statements were inconsistent supporting his claim | Held: Sufficiency affirmed — jury could credit Commonwealth’s witnesses and reject Thomas’s self-defense claim; Commonwealth introduced evidence disproving justification |
| Weight of the evidence: whether verdict shocks the conscience | Commonwealth relied on trial record and jury credibility determinations | Thomas argued O’Toole’s inconsistent statements rendered the verdict against the weight of the evidence | Held: No abuse of discretion by trial court in denying new trial on weight claim |
| Discretionary aspects of sentence: whether court failed to consider appropriate factors | Commonwealth argued sentencing court reviewed PSI and considered factors | Thomas argued court failed to meaningfully explain consideration of sentencing factors and sentence was excessive | Held: Appeal fails procedural/substantive threshold — Rule 2119(f) challenge did not present a substantial question; court presumed to have considered PSI; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McFadden, 156 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2017) (sufficiency standard and viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Commonwealth must introduce evidence contradicting self-defense; factfinder not required to believe defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 609 A.2d 1368 (Pa. Super. 1992) (credibility disputes do not establish insufficiency when jury rejects defendant’s version)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for appellate review of weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Ratushny, 17 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2011) (allegation that court failed to consider factors does not necessarily present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (presumption that sentencing judge considered PSI and relevant info)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Rule 2119(f) guidance on specifying where sentence falls in relation to guidelines)