J-S49038-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
MATTHEW J. REICHART
Appellant No. 25 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered November 12, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No: CP-09-CR-0005323-2012
BEFORE: OLSON, OTT, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2014
Appellant Matthew J. Reichart appeals from a judgment of sentence of
the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court), which, following a
bench trial, convicted him of, inter alia, simple assault under Section
2701(a)(1) of the Crimes Code (Code).1 Upon review, we affirm.
The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. On July 2, 2012,
Detective Thomas Jackson of the Bensalem Township Police Department
charged Appellant with, inter alia, simple assault. In his affidavit of probable
cause accompanying the complaint, Detective Jackson alleged:
On Monday, at approximately 1824 hours Bucks County Radio
dispatched Officers to the Cornwells Train Station (located at 701
Station Avenue) for a report of a disorderly subject on a train.
____________________________________________
1
Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended, 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2701(a)(1).
J-S49038-14
Upon arrival Officer MacDougall spoke with an employee of the
train who stated that subject was threatening the “entire train.”
Officer MacDougall observed the car to be about ¾ full when he
noticed the subject, identified as [Appellant], sitting in the back
seat of the car alone. The conductor . . . stated that [Appellant]
attempted to strike him several times. Officer MacDougall
observed [Appellant] to appear to be agitated and was figidty
[sic] in his seat. Officer MacDougall observed [Appellant] to be
holding a large unmarked prescription bottle wrapped in a clear
baggie. Officer MacDougall also [observed] additional property
including a wallet and NJ [i]dentification card in the name of
[Appellant] in a baseball hat on the seat directly across from
[Appellant]. As Officer MacDougall attempted to speak with
[Appellant] he started talking about how “we are going to die.”
At this time [Appellant], who still appeared agitated, moved
towards Officer MacDougall in an aggressive manner causing
Officer MacDougall to take action to keep his distance. Officer
MacDougall attempted to control [Appellant] but was
unsuccessful as he flailed his arms and moved his body towards
Officer MacDougall’s. As Officer MacDougall continued to
attempt to control [Appellant] he required additional police units
via Police radio. At this time [Appellant] reached up and
grabbed Officer MacDougall’s groin area, grip [sic] his testicles
and apply [sic] pressure causing pain. Despite numerous
warnings of the use of force [Appellant] continued ignoring police
commands and actively resisted Officer MacDougall’s attempts to
control him. [Appellant] was eventually subdued and placed into
custody.
Affidavit of Probable Cause, 7/3/12. Because Appellant waived his right to a
jury trial, the trial court, following a bench trial, convicted him of, inter alia,
simple assault and sentenced him to five to twenty-three months’
imprisonment.
Appellant filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of
on appeal, arguing that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient
evidence to support his conviction for simple assault under Section
2701(a)(1) of the Code. Specifically, Appellant argued that the
Commonwealth’s evidence did not support the conclusion that he “attempted
to or caused bodily injury to Officer MacDougall by grabbing the [O]fficer’s
-2-
J-S49038-14
groin area.” Appellant’s Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal,
12/20/13. The trial court issued an opinion in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court determined that there
was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of simple assault. Particularly,
based on Officer MacDougall’s testimony that the court found credible, the
trial court concluded the Commonwealth met its burden with respect to the
element of bodily injury under Section 2701(a)(1) of the Code. As the trial
court found, “[w]hile [Officer MacDougall’s] testimony alone is sufficient to
prove that [he] suffered substantial pain, we can further infer the existence
of substantial pain from the fact that Appellant grabbed [Officer
MacDougall’s] testicle and squeezed it.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/14, at 6.
Moreover, in the alternative, the trial court concluded that even if Appellant
did not cause bodily injury to Officer MacDougall, his conviction under
Section 2701(a)(1) would still stand, because the Commonwealth presented
sufficient evidence to support a conviction for attempted simple assault. 2 In
this regard, the trial court reasoned:
Looking at the circumstances surrounding the encounter
between Appellant and Officer MacDougall in totality, it can be
inferred that Appellant attempted to cause bodily injury to
Officer MacDougall. Appellant was attempting to free himself of
Officer MacDougall’s control. To accomplish that goal, Appellant
reached down and grabbed Officer MacDougall’s testicle. If
Officer MacDougall did not suffer actual pain from that event, it
____________________________________________
2
Section 2701(a)(1) of the Code provides “a person is guilty of assault if he
attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily
injury to another[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1) (emphasis added).
-3-
J-S49038-14
can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances that, at the
very least, Appellant attempted to cause bodily injury.
Id. at 7.
On appeal,3 Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant of simple
assault, if the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that [] Appellant attempted to or caused bodily
injury to Officer MacDougall by grabbing the Officer’s groin area
while engaged in a physical struggle with Officer MacDougall?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the record on appeal, and
the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion
authored by the Honorable Jeffrey L. Finley, thoroughly and adequately
____________________________________________
3
Our standard and scope of review for a sufficiency claim is well-settled:
We must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and
all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner,
support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there
is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every
element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable
doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.
The evidence established at trial need not preclude every
possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all,
part, or none of the evidence presented. It is not within the
province of this Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute
our judgment for that of the fact-finder. The Commonwealth’s
burden may be met by wholly circumstantial evidence and any
doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be resolved by the fact
finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a
matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the
combined circumstances.
Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887, 889–90 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Additionally, “in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated
and all evidence actually received must be considered.” Commonwealth v.
Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2011). A challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law, subject to plenary review.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254, 259 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-4-
J-S49038-14
disposes of Appellant’s issue on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/14,
at 5-14. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment of sentence. We
direct that a copy of the trial court’s March 13, 2014 Rule 1925(a) opinion be
attached to any future filings in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/14/2014
-5-
Circulated 09/29/2014 02:51 PM
Circulated 09/29/2014 02:51 PM
Circulated 09/29/2014 02:51 PM
Circulated 09/29/2014 02:51 PM
Com. v. Reichart, M.
Combined Opinion