CERCONE, President Judge:
Appellant, Kevin Gouse, takes this appeal from the judgment of sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County. After a non-jury trial, Mr. Gouse was convicted of recklessly endangering another person under the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705 (1973). This section of the Crimes Code provides that:
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
After Mr. Gouse’s post-trial motions were denied, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three to twenty-three and one-half months.
In this appeal, appellant Gouse raises two issues for our consideration: (1) that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he placed or might have placed his alleged victims in danger of death or serious bodily injury; and, (2) that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and, therefore, should be reconsidered and modified. We agree with appellant Gouse that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for recklessly endangering another person and we, therefore, do not reach the sentencing allegation.
This charge arose from an incident in Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania, on an evening in early November, 1977. At that time, two men, James Scholl and Michael Miller, were leaving a local pool hall when they were shouted to by appellant who was sitting in his vehicle across the street. The two men got into their car and pulled alongside of appellant’s vehicle. An argument ensued during which appellant Gouse raised a shotgun and pointed it at the two men for less than one minute. At this point, a mutual friend of all parties concerned intervened and the shotgun was lowered.
[124] At trial, the Commonwealth presented no evidence which would indicate that the shotgun pointed at the two men was loaded at the time. The defendant testified that the gun was not loaded and the friend who intervened in the incident also stated that he believed the gun was not loaded.
In construing the Crimes Code section on recklessly endangering, this court has recently determined that the common law assault requirement of actual present ability to inflict harm must be shown in order to support a conviction under the statute. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 261 Pa.Super. 109, 395 A.2d 1337 (1978). Thus, the mere apparent ability to inflict harm is not sufficient for a conviction under section 2705, and the pointing of an unloaded weapon, without more, does not constitute recklessly endangering. Id. See also Commonwealth v. Baker, 287 Pa.Super. 39, 429 A.2d 709. In Trowbridge, however, we specifically retained the rule in Commonwealth v. Painter, 32 Somerset 115 (1976) which held that the pointing of an unloaded gun at a passenger filled car traveling fifty miles an hour created a great risk that the driver would lose control of the vehicle in a panic reaction to the defendant’s actions. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 261 Pa.Super. at 116 n.14, 395 A.2d at 1341 n.14. The danger created in that case was a reasonably foreseeable reaction to the actor’s conduct of pointing a gun. See Commonwealth v. Baker, supra. As such, the court in Painter held that the circumstances surrounding the pointing of the gun were so inherently dangerous that the required common law element of actual danger of harm was proven despite the fact that the gun was unloaded.
The Commonwealth relies on Painter in support of its position that the actual ability to inflict harm was present in the case sub judice. We cannot agree. In Painter the victim endangered was driving a car at fifty miles an hour, whereas the alleged victim in the instant case was the driver of a car which was stationary.1 Nevertheless, the Commonwealth asks us to allow an inference that the requi[125] site danger of harm was present in this case due to a possible panic reaction to escape the situation by rapidly accelerating the car. Although the Commonwealth as verdict winner is entitled to all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence produced, which is viewed in their favor, Commonwealth v. Whack, 482 Pa. 137, 393 A.2d 417 (1978); Commonwealth v. Meadows, 471 Pa. 201, 369 A.2d 1266 (1977); Commonwealth v. Siiams, 260 Pa.Super. 409, 394 A.2d 992 (1978); Commonwealth v. Nelson, 245 Pa.Super. 33, 369 A.2d 279 (1976) aff’d 476 Pa. 269, 382 A.2d 715 (1977), we hold that under the circumstances of this case it was not reasonably foreseeable that death or serious bodily injury would be caused to the occupants of the car as a result of Mr. Gouse’s conduct. See Commonwealth v. Baker, supra. Despite the Commonwealth’s contentions, we find Trowbridge, rather than Painter to be controlling.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CERCONE, President Judge:
Appellant, Kevin Gouse, takes this appeal from the judgment of sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County. After a non-jury trial, Mr. Gouse was convicted of recklessly endangering another person under the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705 (1973). This section of the Crimes Code provides that:
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
After Mr. Gouse’s post-trial motions were denied, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three to twenty-three and one-half months.
In this appeal, appellant Gouse raises two issues for our consideration: (1) that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that he placed or might have placed his alleged victims in danger of death or serious bodily injury; and, (2) that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and, therefore, should be reconsidered and modified. We agree with appellant Gouse that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for recklessly endangering another person and we, therefore, do not reach the sentencing allegation.
This charge arose from an incident in Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania, on an evening in early November, 1977. At that time, two men, James Scholl and Michael Miller, were leaving a local pool hall when they were shouted to by appellant who was sitting in his vehicle across the street. The two men got into their car and pulled alongside of appellant’s vehicle. An argument ensued during which appellant Gouse raised a shotgun and pointed it at the two men for less than one minute. At this point, a mutual friend of all parties concerned intervened and the shotgun was lowered.
[124] At trial, the Commonwealth presented no evidence which would indicate that the shotgun pointed at the two men was loaded at the time. The defendant testified that the gun was not loaded and the friend who intervened in the incident also stated that he believed the gun was not loaded.
In construing the Crimes Code section on recklessly endangering, this court has recently determined that the common law assault requirement of actual present ability to inflict harm must be shown in order to support a conviction under the statute. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 261 Pa.Super. 109, 395 A.2d 1337 (1978). Thus, the mere apparent ability to inflict harm is not sufficient for a conviction under section 2705, and the pointing of an unloaded weapon, without more, does not constitute recklessly endangering. Id. See also Commonwealth v. Baker, 287 Pa.Super. 39, 429 A.2d 709. In Trowbridge, however, we specifically retained the rule in Commonwealth v. Painter, 32 Somerset 115 (1976) which held that the pointing of an unloaded gun at a passenger filled car traveling fifty miles an hour created a great risk that the driver would lose control of the vehicle in a panic reaction to the defendant’s actions. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 261 Pa.Super. at 116 n.14, 395 A.2d at 1341 n.14. The danger created in that case was a reasonably foreseeable reaction to the actor’s conduct of pointing a gun. See Commonwealth v. Baker, supra. As such, the court in Painter held that the circumstances surrounding the pointing of the gun were so inherently dangerous that the required common law element of actual danger of harm was proven despite the fact that the gun was unloaded.
The Commonwealth relies on Painter in support of its position that the actual ability to inflict harm was present in the case sub judice. We cannot agree. In Painter the victim endangered was driving a car at fifty miles an hour, whereas the alleged victim in the instant case was the driver of a car which was stationary.1 Nevertheless, the Commonwealth asks us to allow an inference that the requi[125] site danger of harm was present in this case due to a possible panic reaction to escape the situation by rapidly accelerating the car. Although the Commonwealth as verdict winner is entitled to all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence produced, which is viewed in their favor, Commonwealth v. Whack, 482 Pa. 137, 393 A.2d 417 (1978); Commonwealth v. Meadows, 471 Pa. 201, 369 A.2d 1266 (1977); Commonwealth v. Siiams, 260 Pa.Super. 409, 394 A.2d 992 (1978); Commonwealth v. Nelson, 245 Pa.Super. 33, 369 A.2d 279 (1976) aff’d 476 Pa. 269, 382 A.2d 715 (1977), we hold that under the circumstances of this case it was not reasonably foreseeable that death or serious bodily injury would be caused to the occupants of the car as a result of Mr. Gouse’s conduct. See Commonwealth v. Baker, supra. Despite the Commonwealth’s contentions, we find Trowbridge, rather than Painter to be controlling.
Since the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden of proof as to be requisite element of actual danger of death or serious bodily injury, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to convict Mr. Gouse of recklessly endangering another person. However, as we stated in Trowbridge, the crime of simple result is made out despite the absence of proof of actual danger. Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 261 Pa.Super. at 116, 395 A.2d at 1341. In the language of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3) (1973), simple assault is proved if there is an attempt “by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the issue arises whether or not this court should remand the case to the lower court with instructions to enter a verdict of guilty for simple assault and then resentence the appellant on that charge. Certainly, this would be proper if the information put Mr. Gouse on notice that the elements of simple assault were at issue, thereby insuring him an opportunity to put forth an adequate defense to that charge. See Commonwealth v. Stots, 227 Pa.Super. 279, 281 n.3, 324 A.2d 480, 481 n.3 (1974) (“Whether conviction for a less serious or less culpable offense may lie on an indictment for another more serious or more [126] culpable crime is principally a question of whether the indictment will fairly put the defendant on notice of the charges against him so that he may prepare an adequate defense.”) See also Commonwealth v. Bryant, 282 Pa.Super. 600, 423 A.2d 407 (1980); Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa.Super. 451, 456, 406 A.2d 1128, 1131 (1979); Commonwealth v. Alexander, 477 Pa. 190, 383 A.2d 877 (1978); Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 247 Pa.Super. 373, 372 A.2d 873 (1977). This end has been frequently achieved by the Commonwealth in one of two ways, namely: (1) they have expressly put the accused “on notice” by specifically charging him with the less culpable offense; or, (2) they have implicitly put the accused “on notice” through the information because the proven, but uncharged, crime is a lesser included offense of the charged, but unproven, offense as a matter of law. Id.
In the case sub judice, however, Mr. Gouse was not explicitly charged with simple assault. Likewise, he was not impliedly put on notice of that offense, although the factual averments in the information were sufficient to show simple assault,2 because the offense of simple assault is not a lesser included offense of recklessly endangering another person.3 [127] With this being the case a conviction for simple assault on an information charging only recklessly endangering would be highly improper. Commonwealth v. Ackerman, 239 Pa.Super. 187, 361 A.2d 746 (1976); 41 Am.Jur.2d Indictments and Informations § 312 (1968). Cf. Commonwealth v. Comber, 374 Pa. 570, 97 A.2d 343 (1953). We are, therefore, constrained to discharge the appellant as we did in Trow-bridge. Nevertheless, for future guidance, we have made apparent what we only hinted at in Trowbridge4: in order for the Commonwealth to obtain convictions for the pointing of an unloaded firearm in situations where there was no actual danger of harm to the person allegedly endangered, the indictment or information should, at the outset, specifically charge the accused with simple assault pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(3). Since this was not done in the present case, we are left with no alternative but to discharge the appellant.
The conviction is reversed and the appellant is discharged.
WATKINS, J., files a dissenting opinion.