Commonwealth v. Rahman
75 A.3d 497
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Rahman and co-defendant Franklin disrupted a Philadelphia City Council meeting on March 19, 2009.
- Sergeant Rosario and Officer Grant confronted them on the balcony; warnings to quiet down were issued but ignored.
- Rahman shoved Grant, punched him, and resisted officers attempting to arrest him, endangering others on a crowded balcony.
- Grant sustained injuries; Rahman was charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, REAP, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct; bench trial held August 24, 2010.
- Rahman was convicted on all counts and sentenced on October 13, 2010 to two years’ probation; post-sentence motion denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of mens rea for aggravated and simple assault | Rahman argues insufficient mens rea to cause bodily injury. | Commonwealth shows intent to cause bodily injury via actions against officer. | Sufficient evidence supports both convictions. |
| Sufficiency of REAP evidence where Rahman did not initiate the conflict | No proof Rahman recklessly endangered others. | Rahman’s reckless conduct placed Grant in danger. | Sufficient evidence supports REAP. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Disorderly Conduct (intent or recklessness) | Did not show intent to cause public inconvenience or recklessly create a risk. | Circumstances show intent to cause substantial harm and serious inconvenience. | Sufficient evidence supports disorderly conduct. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Resisting Arrest | Arrest was lawful; Rahman resisted. | Arrest lawful based on probable cause; resistance supported. | Sufficient evidence supports resisting arrest; arrest lawful. |
| Consolidation with co-defendant and videotape foundation | Consolidation and video evidence without proper foundation was reversible error. | Issues were undeveloped/waived. | Issues waived for lack of development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pettyjohn, 64 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency; circumstantial evidence allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308 (Pa. 2000) (evidentiary standard: evaluate record in light of favorable verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency: evidence need not be mathematically certain)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (circumstances may prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. DiStefano, 782 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 2001) (resolve doubts in favor of verdict if reasonable inferences support)
- Commonwealth v. Faulk, 928 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Super. 2007) (intent may be inferred from attendant circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (simple vs aggravated assault on police officer; intent to cause bodily injury may be inferred)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no obligation to prove actual bodily injury; intent to cause bodily injury shown by conduct)