Com. v. Ruedas, C. ( 2023 )

J-A18024-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CHRISTOPHER RUEDAS :
:
Appellant : No. 1010 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 3, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0002544-2022
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: November 17, 2023
Christopher Ruedas appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, after he was convicted,
following a non-jury trial1 of simple assault,2 disorderly conduct,3 and defiant
trespass.4 After our review, we reverse the conviction for simple assault and
vacate, in part, the judgment of sentence.
The trial court set forth the facts as follows:
____________________________________________
1 During the waiver colloquy, counsel for Ruedas stated for the record that
Ruedas “does have a mental health diagnosis, a schizophrenia diagnosis, but
[Ruedas stated that it] doesn’t impair his ability to understand [] the waiver.”
N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 8/3/22, at 8.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1).
3 Id. at § 5503(a)(1).
4 Id. at § 3503(b)(1)(i).
J-A18024-23
[O]n February 7, 2022, Officer Brian Wilkesmore, of the Allegheny
county Police Department, was working at the severe weather
shelter located at 620 Smithfield Street in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, when he encountered [Ruedas], with whom he was
previously familiar.[5] Officer Wilkesmore stated that there was
mandatory COVID-19 testing being performed at the shelter that
day but that [Ruedas] was causing a disturbance. Officer
Wilkesmore described [Ruedas’] behavior as “very erratic,
temperamental, [and] aggressive.” Officer Wilkesmore stated
that [Ruedas] was fake coughing within five feet of staff members,
refusing to properly wear his surgical mask, which [was] a
stipulation to gain entry to the shelter, and approaching staff
members aggressively and then running away. [The fourth time
Ruedas ran] towards staff, Officer Wilkesmore put his arm out to
re-direct [Ruedas] towards the door, at which point [Ruedas]
struck [Officer Wilkesmore] with a closed fist on his [right] ear.
[Officer Wilkesmore then took [Ruedas] to the ground and
arrested him, after a brief struggle on the part of [Ruedas]. The
encounter was captured on Officer Wilkesmore’s body-worn
camera, which this [c]ourt viewed in its entirety.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/22, at 3-4.
Following conviction, the court sentenced Ruedas to an aggregate term
of one year of probation.6 Ruedas filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises
one issue for our review:
Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict Ruedas of simple
assault because, although he made physical contact with Officer
Wilkesmore, the Commonwealth failed to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that he had the specific intent to cause bodily
injury to the officer?
____________________________________________
5 Officer Wilkesmore testified that he has known Ruedas since the shelter
opened in 2021, and that in his previous interactions with Ruedas, he was
“easily calmed down and deescalated.” N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 8/3/22, at 12.
6 The court sentenced Ruedas to one-year probation for simple assault, 90
days’ probation for disorderly conduct, and 90 days’ probation for defiant
trespass. Order, 8/3/22.
-2-
J-A18024-23
Appellant’s Brief, at 5.
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
is whether[,] viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence
to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by
the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be
resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that[,] as a matter of law[,] no probability of fact may
be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth
may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record
must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be
considered. Finally, the finder of fact[,] while passing upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced,
is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted).
Ruedas argues that where, as here, the victim did not sustain bodily
injury, the Commonwealth must establish that a defendant acted with the
specific intent to cause injury to prove simple assault. See Appellant’s Brief,
at 12. Ruedas contends the evidence failed to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that he intended to cause bodily injury to Officer Wilkesmore. Id. In
particular, he argues that the trial court’s finding, that Ruedas struck Officer
Wilkesmore with a closed fist on his right ear, is not substantiated by body
camera video, id. at 21, and that “[t]his is one of those rare cases where a
[police officer’s] video, which was made a part of the certified record, can
-3-
J-A18024-23
contradict a trial court’s factual finding often based on its credibility
determinations.” Id. at 21, quoting Commonwealth v. Griffin, 116 A.3d
1139, 1143 (Pa. Super. 2015).
A person commits simple assault if they “attempt[] to cause or
intentionally, knowingly[,] or recklessly cause[] bodily injury to another[.]”
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). Bodily injury is defined as “[i]mpairment of
physical condition or substantial pain.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301. A person
attempts to commit a crime when they, “with the intent to commit a specific
crime, [perform] any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the
commission of that crime.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a). “[I]ntent may be inferred
from the circumstances surrounding the incident if a specific intent to cause
bodily injury may reasonably be inferred therefrom.” In re C.E.H., 167 A.3d
767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding testimony from eyewitnesses
provided circumstantial evidence of defendant’s intent to attempt to cause
bodily harm), citing Commonwealth v. Polston, 616 A.2d 669, 679 (Pa.
Super. 1992).
Furthermore, it is axiomatic that simple assault does not require
a victim to suffer actual bodily injury. The attempt to inflict bodily
injury may be sufficient. This intent may be inferred from the
circumstances surrounding the incident if a specific intent to cause
bodily injury may reasonably be inferred therefrom.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, the trial court determined there was sufficient evidence to support
Ruedas’ conviction for simple assault, reasoning as follows:
-4-
J-A18024-23
The evidence presented at trial was that [Ruedas] was causing a
disturbance at the shelter by refusing to be tested for COVID-19,
by refusing to wear his surgical mask properly, and by
aggressively running towards staff before retreating. On
[Ruedas’] fourth approach towards staff, Officer Wilkesmore
attempt to redirect [him], at which point [Ruedas] struck him in
the right ear with a closed fist. Not only did this [c]ourt find
Officer Wilkesmore’s testimony to be credible, but his
body-worn camera footage provided an objective
corroboration of his version of events. Quite simply, there
is no other way to view [Ruedas’] conduct towards Officer
Wilkesmore than an intentional, knowing, or reckless
action to cause bodily injury toward him.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/2/22, at 5-6 (emphasis added).
At trial, Officer Wilkesmore admitted that, in trying to stop Ruedas from
running around, he physically grabbed Ruedas before Ruedas ever struck at
him. See N.T. Non-Jury Trial, supra at 22-23. Further, Officer Wilkesmore
testified that he was not hurt. Id. at 26-27. Although the Commonwealth
need not establish that the victim actually suffered bodily injury, the
Commonwealth must establish an attempt to inflict bodily injury. Polston,
supra at 679. This intent may be shown by circumstances which reasonably
suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury. Id.This Court has reviewed the body camera video, and we conclude the
trial court’s finding is not supported by an objective viewing of that footage.
We agree with Ruedas’ argument that the specific intent to harm Officer
Wilkesmore is not substantiated by an objective view of the footage.
Consistent with Officer Wilkesmore’s testimony, the body cam video shows
that Ruedas was clearly acting erratically, and that Officer Wilkesmore
physically grabbed Ruedas before Ruedas hit the officer’s ear. Body Cam
-5-
J-A18024-23
Video, 2/7/22, at 0:20-24. Additionally, Officer Wilkesmore is heard stating
on the video during his call to his supervisor that he “grabbed [Ruedas]”
before Ruedas struck him. Id. at 10:08. See also N.T. Non-Jury Trial, supra
at 21-22.
Ruedas’ behavior was clearly inappropriate and reactive; it is clear that
he did not want to be touched. It is not at all obvious from the testimony and
the video footage that Ruedas intended to cause Officer Wilkesmore bodily
injury or that such intent can reasonably be inferred from the circumstances
surrounding the incident. Polston, supra. Accordingly, we are constrained
to conclude that the trial court’s determination is not supported by the body
cam video and that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to
sustain Ruedas’ conviction of simple assault. We, therefore, vacate the
judgment of sentence, in part,7 and remand in accordance with this decision.
Simple assault conviction reversed and judgment of sentence vacated,
in part. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
____________________________________________
7 Ruedas has not challenged his convictions for disorderly conduct and defiant
trespass.
-6-
J-A18024-23
DATE: 11/17/2023
-7-