Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal, No. 8308041A.
Paulette J. Balogh, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wieand, Popovich and Lipez, JJ. Wieand, J., dissents.
[ 348 Pa. Super. Page 24]
In a jury trial, defendant was convicted of simple assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing the administration of law. Post-verdict motions were denied, and a sentence of two consecutive one-year terms of probation was imposed for the simple assault and obstructing the administration of law charges. Sentence was suspended on the charge of resisting arrest. In this appeal defendant alleges that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; and (2) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury as to the definition of "bodily injury" for the simple assault and resisting arrest charges. We affirm.
Defendant's sufficiency of the evidence claim is waived since she failed to specifically include it in her post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Gravely, 486 Pa. 194, 404 A.2d 1296 (1979); Commonwealth v. Cardona, 316 Pa. Super. 381, 463 A.2d 11 (1983), petition for allowance of appeal denied.*fn1
In defendant's other claim, she argues that without having been instructed as to the definition of "bodily injury," the jury was forced to "rely on speculation and on individual prejudices to reach a verdict" on the charges of simple assault and resisting arrest. "Bodily injury" is defined as "impairment of physical condition or substantial pain." 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions indicate that courts should use this definition in connection with the instructions on the various assault crimes, including simple assault. Pa. SSJI (Crim) 15.2701A-E. We do not believe, however, that "bodily injury" is a legal term with a meaning "laymen do not necessarily understand without judicial guidance." Commonwealth v. Robinson, 284 Pa. Super. 152, 156, 425 A.2d 748, 750 (1980). Furthermore, the jury heard testimony
[ 348 Pa. Super. Page 25]
that defendant inflicted bruises and scratches upon the arresting officers. Clearly, there was little room for speculation as to whether this constituted "bodily injury." Therefore, the court's failure to define "bodily injury" did not prejudice the defendant.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.