Commonwealth v. McFadden
156 A.3d 299
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On June 21, 2013, crossing guard Michelle Tolbert (employed by the City of Philadelphia) was assaulted at her assigned corner after intervening in a dispute involving schoolchildren. A relative, Sharday McFadden, started the altercation; shortly thereafter a group arrived and Brittany McFadden (appellant) joined the fray. Tolbert suffered blows and scratches.
- Police reports and trial testimony described multiple interactions; conflicting testimony existed about whether appellant struck Tolbert or attempted to separate the combatants.
- Appellant was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3)), conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and criminal mischief; sentenced to 6–12 months’ incarceration plus probation.
- On appeal appellant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault because Tolbert was not within the protected classes listed in § 2702(c), and (2) exclusion of testimony that appellant was pregnant at the time.
- The trial court and this Court reviewed statutory construction of § 2702(c), including subsections (27) (school employees) and (20) (persons who assist law enforcement), and evaluated evidentiary rulings under Pa.R.Evid. 403 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McFadden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain aggravated assault under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3) because Tolbert fit a protected class | Crossing guards are encompassed by § 2702(c)(27) as persons acting because of an employment relationship to schools (broad reading), and/or by § 2702(c)(20) as persons who assist local law enforcement | Tolbert was employed by the City (not a school) so § 2702(c)(27) does not apply; Commonwealth failed to prove she assisted law enforcement for § 2702(c)(20) | § 2702(c)(27) does not cover city-employed crossing guards. But § 2702(c)(20) can include crossing guards who assist local law enforcement; court held sufficient evidence Tolbert was a person who assists law enforcement, so aggravated assault conviction stands |
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony that appellant was pregnant (relevance/prejudice) | Pregnancy could bear on extent of appellant’s involvement; factfinder should assess weight | Exclusion was proper because pregnancy has little probative value on propensity to fight and risks unfair sympathy/prejudice | Trial court did not abuse discretion: exclusion under Rule 403 proper; some references to pregnancy were admitted elsewhere, and exclusion did not contribute to verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fortune, 68 A.3d 980 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of § 2702 and its protected classes)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 546 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 1988) (interpretation of school-employee language in § 2702)
- Civil Serv. Comm’n of Phila. v. Wiseman, 501 A.2d 350 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (crossing guards subject to police rules; informative on assisting law enforcement)
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 834 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2003) (plain-language statutory interpretation principles)
- Commonwealth v. Konias, 136 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2016) (harmlessness review for evidentiary error)