Commonwealth v. Bradley, 69 A.3d 253

Bradley was convicted at trial of aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child for 2009 abuse of his six-year-old daughter, including beating with a belt and hanger, choking, and breaking her arm.
Jury trial before Judge Denis P. Cohen; the injuries included a broken arm, choking, and other abusive acts.
Bradley was sentenced on July 1, 2011 to 7 to 14 years’ imprisonment and filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration/Reduction of Sentence before appealing the sufficiency of the evidence.
The standard for sufficiency requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and may rely on circumstantial evidence; the court cannot weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.
Bradley’ Rule 1925(b) statement argued an arrest of judgment for aggravated assault due to lack of proof of intent under extreme indifference, and asserted Section 509 justification; that Section 509 claim was deemed waived because it was not properly raised in the trial court.
The court affirmed Bradley’s judgment of sentence, accepting Judge Cohen’s Rule 1925(a) analysis that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence for both aggravated assault (intent/recklessness) and endangering the welfare of the child, and noting the Section 509 issue was waived and the appeal timely accepted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault	Bradley argues the Commonwealth failed to prove intent under extreme indifference.	Bradley contends the evidence is speculative and relies on improper justification under Section 509.	Evidence sufficient for both intentional/reckless mens rea under extreme indifference.
Sufficiency of evidence for endangering welfare of a child	Bradley challenges whether actions showed knowing endangerment beyond a reasonable doubt.	Bradley maintains lack of knowing endangerment or inappropriate justification.	Evidence showed knowing violation of parental duty; sufficient to convict.
Waiver and timeliness of appeal regarding Section 509 claim	Section 509 claim should be considered; argued in appeal.	Rule 1925(b) waived the Section 509 issue; appeal timely despite late filing.	Section 509 claim waived; appeal deemed timely.

Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (intent may be inferred from circumstances; recklessness shown by cruel acts)
Commonwealth v. Frisbie, 889 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review (circumstantial evidence permissible))
Commonwealth v. Watson, 627 A.2d 785 (Pa. Super. 1993) (general sufficiency framework; credibility of witnesses)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 600 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 1992) (endangering welfare of child; overt actions can violate duty of care)
Commonwealth v. Ogin, 540 A.2d 549 (Pa. Super. 1988) (endangering welfare requires knowing endangerment; cover-up evidence relevant)