HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-1916 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
SHARON C. ANDERSON 01-1916 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 1925
Bayley, J., June 3, 2002:--
On March 5, 2002, defendant, Sharon C. Anderson, was found guilty by a jury of
simple assault in violation of the Crimes Code at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2701(a)(1). On
April 16, 2002, defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, make
restitution of $604.60 to the Rawlings Company and $35 to Pinnacle Health, and
undergo a period of supervised probation for six months on condition that she be and
remain on good behavior, comply with all written instructions of her probation officer,
and complete an anger management class. The sentence provided that as soon as the
class was completed, the probation shall revert to unsupervised probation. Defendant
filed a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, she avers
"that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction at the time of trial."
The facts in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth are as follows. Charles
Allen, age 57, an employee of the United States Postal Service, owns and lives in a
three bedroom home in New Cumberland, Cumberland County. He rented a part of the
01-1916 CRIMINAL TERM
home to defendant and Tammy Dimm. Defendant and Dimm had a cat and Labrador
dog, and Allen had a terrier dog. The animals, which did not get along well, resulted in
these three people not getting along well. Defendant and Dimm lived in Allen's
residence for a month and a half. On June 19, 2001, Allen was sleeping in his
bedroom when he heard a noise. He got up and walked into a hallway where he found
two rocking chairs blocking the hall between his room and his bathroom. Defendant
and Dimm were in the hall. Allen told them to move the chairs. They would not move
the chairs, and defendant told Allen that he would have to go through her to move the
chairs. Allen bent down to pick up a chair, and defendant punched him in the face. He
fell down. Defendant punched him some more and Dimm kicked him while he was on
the floor. Allen never struck either woman. He retreated to his den and called 911. A
policeman and an ambulance arrived. Allen was taken to the hospital where he was
treated for a fractured noise, and contusions and abrasions on the left temple and on
other parts of his body.1
DISCUSSION
The Crimes Code at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2701(a), provides:
A person is guilty of assault if he:
(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
1 Defendant testified that she put the two rocking chairs in the hall to keep Allen's dog
from the part of the house that she and Dimm rented. Defendant testified that when
Allen came out of his bedroom he was screaming about the furniture, and picked up a
chair with his arms extended toward her. She thought he was going to throw the chair
at her so she pushed the chair and he fell. She never punched him and Dimm did not
do anything to him.
-2-
01-1916 CRIMINAL TERM
causes bodily injury to another. "Bodily injury" means "Impairment of
physical condition or substantial pain." 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301.
In Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000), the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania stated:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.
Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it
establishes each material element of the crime charged and the
commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 533 Pa. 412, 625 A.2d 1167 (1993). Where
the evidence offered to support the verdict is in contradiction to the
physical facts, in contravention to human experience and the laws of
nature, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.
Commonwealth v. Santana, 482, 333 A.2d 876 (1975). When reviewing a
sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of
all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Commonwealth
v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 730 (1991).
A trier of fact must weigh the credibility of all of the witnesses, and may believe
all of, part of or none of a witness's testimony. Commonwealth v. Hackenberger, 795
A. 12 1040 (Pa. Super. 2002). Here, the jury obviously chose to believe the testimony
of Charles Allen and not the testimony of defendant. On these facts, there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty to simple assault.
(Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J.
Michael Mervine, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Linda Hollinger, Esquire
For Defendant :saa
-3-