Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. NICHOLAS ROHACH (07/05/85)

filed: July 5, 1985.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NICHOLAS ROHACH, APPELLANT



Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, No. 8302511.

COUNSEL

Robert B. Truel, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Eric Woltshock, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Brosky, Rowley and Feeney, JJ.*fn*

Author: Rowley

[ 344 Pa. Super. Page 232]

OPINION OF THE COURT

In this direct appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of one count of aggravated assault, appellant presents numerous claims of error. Initially, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. In addition, appellant finds misconduct warranting a new trial in the prosecutor's display of an unrelated weapon at trial, and in certain questions directed to appellant and his witness. Thirdly, appellant assails the admission of evidence of his flight following the crime, presented in rebuttal. Furthermore, appellant characterizes as erroneous the trial judge's refusal to permit (1) use of the victim's hospital records for impeachment purposes, and (2) presentation of photographs of the area surrounding the scene of the crime to the jury during appellant's direct examination. Lastly, appellant contests the instructions given to the jury, as well as the sentence he received.

Because we find error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury, we reverse the judgment of sentence.

[ 344 Pa. Super. Page 233]

Initially, we address the appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.*fn1

Appellant was charged with violation of § 2702(a)(1) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 101 et seq. As such, the Commonwealth had the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant

     attempt[ed] to cause serious bodily injury to another, or cause[d] such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life . . .

In determining whether the Commonwealth has met this burden, a reviewing court must ascertain whether,

     accepting as true all of the evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.