In the Interest of: C.E.H., a Minor
167 A.3d 767
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On July 27, 2015, police attempted to arrest J.F.S. (the minor’s stepfather) in Mt. Carmel; C.E.H. interfered by running to the scene, shouting obscenities, jumping on Chief Owens’s back, and tugging at Owens’s waist area while officers were escorting J.F.S. to a cruiser.
- Gary Hixon, a longtime local rescue squad member and acquaintance of the officers, intervened by grabbing and pushing C.E.H. away from the officer.
- The incident lasted about 45 minutes and had four eyewitnesses who testified at the adjudicatory hearing.
- Juvenile court adjudicated C.E.H. delinquent of simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1)), aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(2)), obstructing administration of law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and two counts of disorderly conduct (18 Pa.C.S. § 5503).
- Disposition: placement on probation, required participation in treatment programs, and 20 hours of community service. Appeal argues insufficient evidence of intent, trial-court limits on bias impeachment, and weight-of-the-evidence error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.E.H.) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple and aggravated assault | No evidence proving intent to attempt to cause bodily injury or serious bodily injury | Eyewitness testimony circumstantially shows C.E.H. jumped on officer, tugged at waist area containing weapons, supporting inference of intent to cause injury | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to infer intent for simple and aggravated assault |
| Sufficiency for obstruction and disorderly conduct | Actions were not sufficient to prove obstruction or disorderly conduct beyond reasonable doubt | Jumping on officer and physically interfering with escort constituted force/physical interference and created public risk/annoyance | Affirmed — evidence supported obstruction and both disorderly conduct counts |
| Exclusion of further questioning to show bias (Hixon’s relationship with officers) | Trial court improperly sustained Commonwealth objections, preventing development of bias defense | Court allowed testimony about length and character of relationships; limited exclusion was harmless because other eyewitnesses corroborated Hixon | Affirmed — limited exclusion harmless; bias theory not prejudiced |
| Weight of the evidence claim | Trial court relied on less credible witnesses; verdict against weight of evidence | Claim was not preserved in trial court and thus waived | Affirmed — weight claim waived for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence may satisfy burden)
- Commonwealth v. Newsome, 787 A.2d 1045 (Pa. Super. 2001) (factfinder resolves credibility; may believe all, part, or none of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Polston, 616 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 1992) (intent to inflict bodily injury may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008) (aggravated assault intent to cause serious bodily injury may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Pringle, 450 A.2d 103 (Pa. Super. 1982) (disorderly conduct upheld where shouting at officers could provoke others during an arrest)
- In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 (Pa. 2014) (procedural requirements for preserving weight-of-the-evidence claims in juvenile matters)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (trial court discretion on weight claims; preservation considerations)