Com. v. Trometter, E.
Com. v. Trometter, E. No. 695 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Police Chief Brad Hare responded to a report of an assault on an elderly woman and encountered Erick Trometter walking on Shikellamy Avenue. Trometter gave a false name and refused to identify himself or comply with commands.
- Chief Hare asked Trometter to sit in the patrol car; Trometter refused and resisted a pat-down. Hare discovered a wooden-handled large knife in Trometter’s pocket.
- Trometter pushed Hare, brandished the knife, repeatedly stated he would not go back to jail, and advanced toward Hare despite verbal commands to drop the knife.
- Hare deployed a taser multiple times; Trometter ripped off probes and continued advancing. Hare ultimately shot Trometter once in the abdomen; Trometter received medical attention and later admitted at the hospital he had the knife and preferred death over returning to jail.
- A jury convicted Trometter of two counts of aggravated assault (against an officer), possession of a weapon, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. He was sentenced to an aggregate 4–8 years. Trometter appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Trometter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain aggravated assault (attempt to cause serious bodily injury to a police officer) | Evidence showed Trometter advanced toward an officer with a large knife, ignored repeated commands, was tased multiple times and still approached—constituting a substantial step and intent to cause serious bodily injury | Trometter contended he did not lunge or strike, remained about ten feet away, did not speed up in approach, and mere brandishing is akin to pointing a firearm (simple assault) rather than aggravated assault | Court held evidence sufficient: advancing with a knife despite commands and multiple tasings constituted a substantial step toward causing serious bodily injury; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Rule 1925(b) specificity for sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 57 A.3d 74 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (attempt requires substantial step; intent can be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Savage, 418 A.2d 629 (Pa. Super. 1980) (pointing a firearm at another, without more, may constitute simple assault)
- Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing boundaries between simple and aggravated assault in weapon-display contexts)