Com. v. Beech, S.

J-S20008-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
STEVEN CRAIG BEECH
Appellant No. 521 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014506-2012
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 18, 2016
Appellant, Steven Craig Beech, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered by the Honorable Lester G. Nauhaus, Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual history as follows.
Officer Juan Terry was on duty on March 12, 2012, at
approximately 2:15 a.m., in full uniform when he saw the victim,
Jon Dunham, and the defendant having a heated argument in
front of the defendant’s doorway. The victim walked towards the
officer after seeing him and the defendant went back into his
house. Then the victim knocked on the defendant’s door as the
officer went to turn off his patrol car and the defendant walked
out of the front door[.] … Officer Terry saw him point a gun in
the victim’s face. The victim said “Oh you are going to point a
gun at me. You are going to point a gun at me[.]” … Officer
Terry saw the defendant raise the gun and point it in the victim’s
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S20008-16
face. Officer Terry was against a wall and shadowed by the
building as he witnessed the incident. After the victim said that
the defendant was pointing a gun at him, Officer Terry observed
the victim glance toward him and the defendant followed the
victim’s gaze and also viewed the officer. The defendant then ran
back into his house and slammed the door shut. The victim also
testified that the defendant had a gun when he returned outside.
Trial Court Opinion, at 3 (references to transcript omitted).
A jury convicted Beech of simple assault by physical menace.1
Thereafter, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years’ probation. 2 This
timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Beech challenges the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s
evidence to support his simple assault conviction.
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 trier of fact while
passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3).
2
The trial court also ordered Beech to pay a $1,000 fine.
-2-
J-S20008-16
evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence.
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 725-726 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(citation and brackets omitted). “It is the function of the jury to evaluate
evidence adduced at trial to reach a determination as to the facts, and
where the verdict is based on substantial, if conflicting evidence, it is
conclusive on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).
Beech merely contends that his conviction cannot stand because “the
Commonwealth failed to present even a scintilla of evidence of [his] intent to
place Jon Dunham in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 4. We disagree.
A person is guilty of simple assault if he “attempts by physical menace
to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
2701(a)(3). The specific elements that must be proven under this section
are as follows.
(1) that the defendant attempted to put the [victim] in fear of
imminent serious bodily injury, and took a substantial step
toward that end, (2) that the defendant used physical menace to
do this, and (3) that it was the defendant’s conscious object or
purpose to cause fear of serious bodily injury.
Commonwealth v. Little, 614 A.2d 1146, 1151 (Pa. Super. 1992).3 “Intent
can be proven by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the
defendant’s conduct under the attendant circumstances.” Reynolds, 835
____________________________________________
3
This statement was part of the trial court’s opinion, expressly adopted and
attached as an appendix in Little. See id., at 1148.
-3-
J-S20008-16
A.2d at 726 (citation omitted). “[P]ointing a gun at someone constitutes
simple assault by physical menace.” Little, 614 A.2d at 1152 (footnote
omitted).
Instantly, the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, showed that after
engaging in an altercation with Jon Dunham, Beech went into his house,
retrieved a gun, and then pointed that gun at Dunham. See N.T. Trial,
11/3/14 – 11/5/14, at 45. As this Court made clear in Little, Beech’s
conduct in pointing a gun at Dunham establishes his intent to place Dunham
in fear of imminent serious bodily injury through menacing activity. See 614
A.2d at 1152. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to establish the
elements of simple assault by physical menace pursuant to section
2701(a)(3).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/18/2016
-4-