Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410

Appellant Hansley was convicted by a Lancaster County jury of first-degree robbery.
Target loss prevention observed Hansley entering with a bag, handling merchandise, and moving DVDs around the store.
Hansley exchanged items at guest services, passed all points of sale, and alarm tripped when leaving.
A knife was observed in Hansley’s pocket during the struggle with store security, and he brandished it toward a security guard.
Police identified Hansley in a photographic lineup and the Commonwealth charged robbery and related offenses.
The trial court sentenced Hansley to 5–10 years’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ probation; post-sentence motions were withdrawn.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for robbery	Hansley argues evidence did not prove robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.	Commonwealth contends the evidence showed threat and imminent danger supporting robbery.	Sufficient evidence supported robbery; intent and threat shown.
Continuance to interview hospitalized witness	Denial of continuance denied defense time to consult a potential witness.	Court abused discretion by denying requested continuance on second trial day.	No abuse of discretion; denial proper and not prejudicial.
Juror justification/self-defense instruction	Trial court erred in refusing to instruct on justification and self-defense.	Evidence did not satisfy three-element test for self-defense/justification.	Court properly refused instruction; no error.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency standard—view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review framework)
Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 585 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Super. 1991) (three elements for self-defense instruction)
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (waiver doctrine for Rule 1925 issues)
Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (waiver for inadequately developed claims)