*1 Act) referred defines as sus- “Injury” “accidentally tained harm resulting ... or death therefrom.” One purposes of the Act is to promote “uniformity as the essential elements of the of motor vehicle system acci- confusion, dent and insurance law to avoid complexity, uncertainty, engendered and chaos which would aby of multiplicity Section noncomplementary systems.” 102(a)(8). us, In the finding case before the term includes fatal in “injury” consistency results with the Act, promotes and therefore its purposes. stated
The certificate coverage previously quoted clearly ex- coverage cludes under the facts of this case. Even our examination of the master and the does not policy brochure contrary lead to a conclusion. We therefore find that in entering judgment appellee. trial court erred in favor of reversed, Judgment and case remanded to the trial court entry appellant. favor of Jurisdiction relinquished. Pennsylvania, Appellant,
COMMONWEALTH Jack MAGNELLI.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court
Submitted June
Filed Dec. *2 Pittsburgh, Tell, Attorney, G. Assistant District Melinda Commonwealth, appellant. for Costanzo, August Pittsburgh, appellee. J. ROWLEY, SOLE,
Before and DEL OLSZEWSKI JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT ROWLEY, Judge: by jury was convicted assault1 obstructing administration of or governmen- law other
tal function.2 The trial court arrested on aggravated assault conviction and the Commonwealth has appealed from that Order. erred, alleging Commonwealth First,
presents arguments. two argues Commonwealth that there was sufficient support finding evidence to Second, victim sustained serious bodily injury. argues Commonwealth that the trial court erred when it *3 found that the prove Commonwealth failed to the element specific intent because intent need not proved bodily when serious has actually been inflicted. has not presented a brief to this Court. The trial court in granted appellee’s motion arrest of judgment because “the actions of [appellee], under the circumstances, did up not measure to an to attempt cause serious bodily injury under circumstances manifesting an extreme to the value human Trial indifference life.” opinion at 5-6 in (emphasis original). The trial court shove, analogized appellee’s act to an isolated or the act of throwing ground someone to the and found that the connec- tion the officer’s injuries appellee’s between and “acts is so attenuated that this court feels that the result in no of [appellee].” Id. way contemplation within the intent or at 6.
In reviewing the trial court’s order must examine all the in the most light Commonwealth as verdict winner. Com- the favorable to 2702(a)(1). 1. 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. §
2. 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. 5101. §
348 201, 1266 Meadows, 471 Pa. A.2d v. 369
monwealth in (1977). The standard used our evaluation is ‘[w]hether the all inferences all of evidence and reasonable accepting which, therefrom, properly if the could upon jury believed verdict; it insuffi- its would be nonetheless have based that the beyond to find reasonable doubt cient in law charged.’ of the crime guilty Commonwealth 104, 106, 364, (1974). Froelich, 458 365 Pa. v. 448-449, Pa.Super. Pandolfo, Commonwealth omitted). (1982)(citations reaching its A.2d assumed, its conclusion, purposes the injuries the amounted to “serious victim’s opinion, as defined under 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. injury” § at Id. 17, 1982, on May Sharpsburg
The reveals that record Lang to a Borough responded Police Officers Rudzki and Sharps- at 920 Penn in domestic disturbance Street reported (R.R. 36A.) arriving scene, the officers burg. at Upon Jr., Anthony Magnelli, appellee’s confronted brother co-defendant, as he exited from the residence to which officers, at swore Anthony officers had been directed. him, and his swung fist at Officer challenged fight them Rudzki, 91A-92A.) ran (R.R. then Anthony ducked. who residence; ran, in his front of as he across the street and, his restrain up father came street to concrete son, ground adjacent him to the forced led residence. An- and informed approached Magnellis The officers *4 conduct. disorderly he was under arrest for thony that legs, 40A.) Anthony’s father sat on (R.R. Anthony’s While attempt- Anthony either side of and the officers kneeled on Antho- during him. which to handcuff A scuffle ensued ed began nightstick Rudzki's and gained control Officer ny As officers crouched over flail the officers. to it at Rudzki, from Officer Anthony, up came behind appellee up, him picked pants, officer his shirt grabbed and steps. into concrete him forward and and threw right with his collar bone. The officer struck the
349 and Officer Rudzki called across the street Appellee fled scene, on the just had arrived to another officer who out (R.R. me.” “Mike, pushed him. is the man who grab That chase, apprehended 44A.) appellee After a short 110A.) (R.R. under arrest. placed suffered a incident, Rudzki result of the Officer As a and the inser- required surgery collar bone which fractured (R.R. set the fracture. properly in order to pin tion of a therapy for 196A.) physical underwent 191, The officer approximately and missed work 5 weeks approximately until treatment was From the time months. right to use his arm. unable substantially he was completed, 52A, 199A.) (R.R. commit is made to an
Where bodily not sustain serious assault, victim does or where the specific required prove is to the Commonwealth injury, 11, Pa.Super. Grassmyer, intent. Commonwealth However, (1979). where n. 1 16 n. inflicted, is not the Commonwealth bodily injury serious intent; aggrava this is because required prove recklessly. acted if the defendant proven bemay ted assault case, it is present In the Id.; 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. § Trial inflicted. injury was serious conceded that the Com Thus, need not address we opinion at argument. first monwealth’s argument, we second
As to Commonwealth’s the trial court’s find its characterization disagree with that it arrested emphasized The trial court ing. sufficient produce had failed the Commonwealth
because mani circumstances acted “under human value extreme festing indifference in original). (emphasis at 6 opinion Trial court’s life.” references to does contain opinion the trial court’s Although upon its Order not “intent,” court does base the trial appellee’s insufficient evidence finding that there was record find that and, do not intent”; “specific did, as it ruling infer otherwise. compels us *5 that evidence from only found there was insufficient state requisite the finder of fact could infer the which mind. record,
Having agree the the trial court reviewed we with the evidence was insufficient establish manifesting an ex- acted under circumstances recklessly Therefore, of human life. treme indifference to the value affirm. Order affirmed.
OLSZEWSKI, J., dissenting opinion. a files OLSZEWSKI, dissenting: Judge, the decision to majority’s I dissent from respectfully I the arrest of the court. would reverse affirm lower guilty verdict of on the jury and reinstate assault. charge aggravated record and the appropriate A of both the careful review aggravated assault. support lends for a conviction laws is majority, stated when an correctly by As assault, or the victim made to commit where intent must bodily injury, specific serious does not sustain If bodily injury serious support conviction. proven inflicted, requisite intent is not the element then is is. seri- prove, must recklessness Since the Commonwealth conceded, only must injury ous was I it does. recklessness. believe establish facts, majority, clearly show The as summarized severe There was causing injuries. attack an unwarranted of the area in as to the smallness which repeated testimony It that there place. took was inevitable the entire incident or merely pushed if someone was even would be into concrete Throwing person shoved. Given the injuries. to result serious certainly going most circumstances, I find the facts sufficient totality indifferent the conviction. satisfy actions, rendering his actions of his thus consequences reckless. I would reverse analysis, foregoing light *6 judgment. arrest of
lower minor, PHILLIPS, parents and natural his Ronald A. and Dianne guardians, G. PHILLIPS Charles wife, Appellant, Phillips, his COMPANY, Appellee. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE Pennsylvania. Superior Court Aug. Argued 20, 1985.
Filed Dec.