In the Int. of: J.L., Appeal of: J.L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 1382 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S04029-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.L., MINOR : : : : : : No. 1382 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered March 27, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No: CP-51-JV-0000132-2024

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2025

Appellant, J.L., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order entered on

March 27, 2024, adjudicating him delinquent of aggravated assault,

conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly

endangering another person. Upon review, we affirm.

On January 12, 2024, the victim, E.R., was contacted by a female who

said that Appellant and his friend, M.E., wanted to hang out with E.R. at

Hancock Playground. N.T. Hearing, 3/27/24, at 7-8. When the victim arrived,

the female and M.E. were already there and began talking with him. Id. at 8.

Appellant and his friends arrived at the playground shortly thereafter. Id.

The victim said that he was sitting on the bench when “out of nowhere”

Appellant and M.E. started hitting him from behind. Id. Appellant and M.E.

repeatedly punched the victim in the head, shoulder, ribs and on his side. Id.

at 10-11. The victim ducked his head down between his legs and put his arms J-S04029-25

next to his head to protect himself. Id. Less than a minute later, Appellant

and M.E. stopped punching, and E.R. was able to run away. Id. 11, 22.

The entire incident was recorded on a bystander’s cell phone and was

played for the juvenile court. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1. The video

showed the victim seated on a bench talking to a male and female. There

were multiple people standing by. Out of nowhere, Appellant walked up

behind E.R. and punched him on the right side of his face. Appellant continued

to strike E.R. in the head area approximately 30 times, landing blows to the

top and side of his unprotected head. Appellant then kicked E.R. in the top of

the head with such force that his cell phone fell out of his pocket. When E.R.

went to grab his cell phone, Appellant struck him approximately six more

times in the head and face. E.R., thinking Appellant was done, started to

release his defensive position when Appellant struck him again. Fortunately,

E.R. only sustained a broken nose and bruising on his face, head, and legs.

N.T. Hearing, 3/27/24, at 15-16.

On January 23, 2024, the Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition

alleging that Appellant committed the delinquent acts of aggravated assault,

conspiracy, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. On

March 27, 2024, following a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated Appellant

delinquent on all charges. Appellant was ordered to serve probation with

curfew, and to complete the following: (1) write a 250-word apology letter;

(2) attend school with no unexcused absences, lateness or suspensions; (3)

random drug tests; and (4) obey his mother’s rules of the home.

-2- J-S04029-25

Appellant filed a post-dispositional motion, which was denied by

operation of law. This appeal followed. Both Appellant and the juvenile court

have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises two issues for our

review:

A. Was the evidence insufficient to sustain a finding that [Appellant] committed or conspired to commit the offense of aggravated assault against E.R. where E.R. did not suffer serious bodily injury and the prosecution failed to prove that either [Appellant] or his co-conspirator agreed to cause or attempted to cause serious bodily injury?

B. Should the conspiracy charge have been graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree as the evidence only supported a conspiracy to commit simple assault?

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his

adjudications of aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated

assault.1 He contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he had

specific intent to cause serious bodily injury to E.R. Appellant’s Brief, at 10-

17. Appellant argues that “[a] rational look at the assault would suggest that

[Appellant and M.E.] intended to do exactly what they did: to scare E.R. and

cause some scrapes and bruises. This behavior amounts to simple assault,

not aggravated assault[.]” Id. at 14. He explains that “[t]he boys involved

. . . are all school aged teenagers, not fully formed adults[,]” and that the

____________________________________________

1 Although Appellant’s stated issue is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for both aggravated assault and conspiracy, the argument section of his brief focuses on the specific intent element, or lack thereof, for attempted aggravated assault. As such, we will address only that issue.

-3- J-S04029-25

video “show[ed] what violent bullying looks like[,]” but that “no one expects

one of the kids in that fight to be permanently disfigured or maybe die where

no guns are involved.” Id. at 14-15.

Our standard of review 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 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 evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559-60 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc)

(internal citations omitted).

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated assault:

(a) Offense defined. – A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: **** (1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1). Serious bodily injury is defined as impairment of

physical condition or substantial pain “which creates a substantial risk of death

-4- J-S04029-25

or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or

impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §

2301 (definitions).

Here, it is undisputed that E.R. did not suffer serious bodily injury. A

broken nose, without more, does not constitute serious bodily injury. See

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 383 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. 1978). As such, we

must determine whether Appellant attempted to inflict serious bodily injury

upon the victim. This Court has explained:

The Commonwealth, in sustaining an aggravated assault conviction, need only show the defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to another, not that serious bodily injury actually occurred. Attempt, for aggravated assault purposes, is found where the accused intentionally acts in a manner which constitutes a substantial or significant step toward perpetrating serious bodily injury upon another. The Commonwealth can establish specific intent from the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004, 1012 (Pa. Super. 2001),

appeal denied, 803 A.2d 733 (Pa. 2002) (citations omitted). “Where the injury

actually inflicted did not cause serious bodily injury, the charge of aggravated

assault can be supported only if the evidence supports a finding that the [act]

was accompanied by the intent to inflict serious bodily injury.” Alexander,

383 A.2d at 889.

To determine whether Appellant possessed the requisite specific intent,

we employ a totality of circumstances test. See Commonwealth v.

Matthew, 909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 2006). Our Supreme Court has provided

-5- J-S04029-25

a list of non-exhaustive factors to consider in making the determination: (1)

evidence of a significant difference in size or strength between the defendant

and the victim; (2) any restraint on the defendant preventing him from

escalating the attack; (3) the defendant’s use of a weapon or other implement

to aid his attack; and (4) his statements before, during, or after the attack

which might indicate his intent to inflict injury. Id. at 1257.

We conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, was sufficient to allow the fact-finder to conclude that

Appellant intended to cause serious bodily injury when he attacked the victim

from behind and repeatedly punched him in the head. Based on the totality

of the evidence presented, the fact-finder could have found that Appellant

intentionally acted in a manner which constituted a substantial or significant

step toward perpetrating serious bodily injury upon the victim. See Galindes,

supra.

While it was difficult to determine a difference in size or strength

between Appellant and the victim, the video shows that the victim was seated

on a bench when Appellant and his co-conspirator attacked unprovoked from

behind. The highly advantageous position of standing, coupled with the

surprise attack, allowed Appellant to strike a seated E.R. from behind, who

immediately took a defensive position, effectively trapping him on the bench

without the ability to fight back. Appellant was not restrained, despite the

person recording the video and others standing idly by and watching the

attack unfold. Thus, there was nothing preventing Appellant from escalating

-6- J-S04029-25

or continuing the attack. Appellant did not use a weapon in the attack.

However, the video showed Appellant repeatedly punching the victim in the

head, a vital part of the body, before delivering a kick to E.R. head, and then

continued to strike him. E.R. testified that Appellant did not say anything

before, during or after the attack, and believed he and Appellant were friends.

In addition to the Matthews factors, it is unfathomable to this Court

that Appellant characterizes 40 plus punches and a kick to the victim’s head

area as merely “violent bullying” and does not evince an intent to inflict serious

bodily injury. This is not a case of a single punch to the head. Nor is it a case

of a mutual scuffle. Rather, Appellant and M.E. repeatedly and relentlessly

struck the victim in the head while multiple bystanders watched, and recorded,

the assault. The video shows Appellant striking the victim on the top of his

head multiple times, which was left unprotected. We conclude that Appellant

acted in a manner which constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a

serious bodily injury upon another. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to

sustain Appellant’s adjudication of the delinquent act of aggravated assault.

Appellant’s second issue is an extension of his first – “Because . . . the

evidence does not establish that the boys agreed to inflict serious bodily

injury, it therefore does not establish that they agreed to – or conspired to –

commit aggravated assault[,]” and the grading of the conspiracy charged

should be lowered “to reflect the gradation of the offense they conspired to

commit, simple assault[.]” Id. Essentially, Appellant concedes that he and

-7- J-S04029-25

his co-conspirator agreed to commit simple assault, but not aggravated

assault because there was no intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

Generally, conspiracy is graded the same “as the most serious offense

which is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy.” 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 905. Since aggravated assault is a felony of the first degree, then conspiracy

to commit aggravated assault would also be a felony of the first degree. As

discussed in detail, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Appellant’s

adjudication of delinquency for aggravated assault. Therefore, the delinquent

act of conspiracy was properly graded as a felony of the first degree. No relief

is due on this claim.

Order affirmed.

Date: 4/10/2025

-8-