Com. v. Bell, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 1680 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S14024-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JUNE BELL : : Appellant : No. 1680 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0001680-2022

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED JULY 15, 2025

June Bell (“Bell”) appeals from the judgment of the sentence imposed

by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) following her

convictions of aggravated assault, simple assault, disorderly conduct, and

resisting arrest.1 On appeal, Bell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to

support her aggravated assault conviction. We affirm.

On February 16, 2022, Bell refused to exit an out-of-service SEPTA bus.

Officer Shakeena Watkins was called to the scene to attempt to persuade Bell

to leave the bus. When Officer Watkins approached her, Bell stated, “I’m

going to beat you the f*ck up,” took a fighting stance, and began swinging

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2702(a)(3), 2701(a), 5104, 5503(a)(1). J-S14024-25

her arms wildly, striking Officer Watkins in the face, causing a small cut. Once

Officer Watkins and other officers were able to get Bell under control, she bit

Officer Watkins on her hand, following which Officer Watkins yelled at Bell to

stop biting her. Following the arrest, the Commonwealth charged Bell with

numerous crimes.

On June 7, 2024, after Bell waived her right to a jury trial, the trial court

found Bell guilty of the aforementioned crimes. It sentenced Bell to four years

of probation.

Bell timely appealed and raises the following question for our review:

“Was the evidence legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

[Bell’s] guilt of aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3)?” Bell’s Brief at

2.

In her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support her

aggravated assault conviction, Bell argues that the Commonwealth failed to

establish that bodily injury resulted from her actions. Id. at 5-6. Bell

highlights that Officer Watkins testified “that [Bell] didn’t really hurt me.” Id.

at 6 (quoting N.T., 6/7/2024, at 20). Further, Bell claims that the evidence

did not establish her attempt to cause bodily injury. Bell’s Brief at 7-8. Bell

notes that Officer Watkins testified that Bell appeared to be “out of it” and

“undergoing a mental health crisis.” Id. at 11 (quoting N.T., 6/7/2024, at 19-

20). Additionally, Bell emphasizes Officer Watkins testified that she did not

-2- J-S14024-25

believe Bell was swinging at her, stating “I don’t think it was at me per se.

But it was just like wild.” Id. (quoting N.T., 6/7/2024, at 14).

Our standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

is well settled:

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all elements of the offense. Additionally, we may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder. The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

“A person is guilty of aggravated assault if [s]he … attempts to cause or

intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to any of the officers, agents,

employees or other person enumerated in subsection (c), in the performance

of duty.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3). Police officers are specifically enumerated

in subsection (c) as included in the definition of “officers, agents, employees.”

Id. § 2702(c)(1). The law defines bodily injury as “[i]mpairment of physical

condition or substantial pain.” Id. § 2301.

“[I]n a prosecution for aggravated assault on a police officer the

Commonwealth has no obligation to establish that the officer actually suffered

a bodily injury; rather, the Commonwealth must establish only an attempt to

inflict bodily injury, and this intent may be shown by circumstances which

reasonably suggest that a defendant intended to cause injury.”

-3- J-S14024-25

Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 560 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc)

(citation omitted, emphasis in original). “To show an attempt to inflict bodily

injury, it must be shown that the actor had a specific intent to cause bodily

injury. A person acts intentionally with respect to a material element of an

offense if it is [her] conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to

cause such a result.” Commonwealth v. Hatch, 314 A.3d 928, 932 (Pa.

Super. 2024) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

At trial, Officer Watkins provided testimony consistent with the

recitation of the facts above. See N.T., 6/7/2024, at 13, 14, 21-22, 33.2

Viewing the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the

light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, the record

supports the finding that Bell attempted to cause bodily injury to Officer

Watkins. The evidence of record sufficiently demonstrates that Bell attempted

to cause Officer Watkins bodily injury by maintaining a fighting stance,

swinging her arms wildly, and striking and biting Officer Watkins, all of which

was preceded by her direct statement that she intended to cause bodily harm

to Officer Watkins. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/18/2024, at 5 (Bell’s intent to

cause bodily harm can be inferred from “her fighting stance, wild swinging of

her closed fists, and biting Officer Watkins on the hand”); see also Brown,

23 A.3d at 560 (holding that determining whether officer sustained bodily

2 Our independent review of the body camera footage confirmed the testimony

presented at trial regarding Bell’s actions.

-4- J-S14024-25

injury was irrelevant, as defendant’s striking of an officer and flailing of his

arms as he resisted arrest was sufficient to show that he intended to cause

injury to the officers and support an aggravated assault conviction under

section 2702(a)(3)).

Officer Watkins’ subjective view of the circumstances, including that Bell

was suffering a mental health crisis and not specifically directing her ire to the

officer, is of no moment; as stated, our standard of review requires this Court

to review all evidence and reasonable inferences drawn in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner. See Juray, 275 A.3d

at 1042; see also Commonwealth v. Horlick, 296 A.3d 60, 63 (Pa. Super.

2023) (recognizing that intent can be inferred from acts, conduct, or from the

attendant circumstances). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support

the aggravated assault conviction.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 7/15/2025

-5-