The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a simple assault conviction against Brenton Joseph, ruling that his actions—including pulling out and opening a folding knife while aggressively approaching a hotel employee—were sufficient to constitute an attempt, by physical menace, to place the victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
The court affirmed the judgment of sentence imposed by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, concluding that the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly supported the jury’s finding that Mr. Joseph committed simple assault under state law.
The Confrontation at Kings Inn
The incident took place on the evening of April 26, 2024, at the Kings Inn on Fraver Drive in Muhlenberg Township. According to the trial court’s summary, which the appellate court adopted, Brenton Joseph arrived at the inn, seemingly intoxicated, seeking a room. Raul Lopez, an employee, informed him that there were no vacancies.
This refusal immediately angered Joseph, who became confrontational before initially leaving the building. However, the dispute escalated once outside. Joseph continued to yell and kicked a door on his way to his car. The victim, Mr. Lopez, followed him out and told Joseph to leave the property or the police would be called.
As the argument intensified, Joseph pulled a folding knife from his pocket, opened the blade at his side, and began walking toward Mr. Lopez while continuing to yell. The situation drew in the wives of both men, who witnessed the standoff. When the victim’s wife, who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm, pulled out her gun and held it by her side in response to the knife display, Joseph reportedly paused and commented, “you’re bringing a gun to a knife fight.” Following this, Joseph returned to his car and departed the premises with his wife. The entire confrontation reportedly lasted about 25 minutes.
The Legal Challenge: Sufficient Evidence for Simple Assault
A jury found Joseph guilty of simple assault, a conviction that carried a sentence of six to 12 months in jail. He was also found guilty of the summary offense of disorderly conduct.
On appeal, Joseph challenged the simple assault conviction, arguing that the evidence failed to prove he attempted to put the victim in fear of *imminent serious bodily injury* through physical menace.
The Superior Court, in an opinion authored by Judge Olson, reviewed the evidence under the standard that requires viewing all testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth (the verdict winner).
The court focused specifically on Pennsylvania’s statute defining simple assault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3), which states that a person is guilty if they: “attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”
To meet this charge, the court noted three necessary elements: (1) an attempt to cause fear of imminent serious bodily injury through a substantial step; (2) the use of physical menace; and (3) the conscious objective to cause that fear. The court defined “physical menace” as “menacing or frightening activity.”
Court Finds Menace and Intent Were Clear
The appellate court determined that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth—primarily the victim’s testimony—was more than adequate to satisfy all elements of the crime.
The trial testimony established that Joseph, while intoxicated, escalated the situation by kicking the door, then brandishing an open-bladed knife while actively walking toward the victim. The victim testified that Joseph only stopped his advance when he saw the gun drawn by the victim’s wife. Crucially, the victim recounted Joseph’s comment regarding the gun and knife, which the court interpreted as an admission of intent to engage in physical conflict using the weapon.
The Superior Court reasoned that an open knife is “obviously capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.” By brandishing this weapon and approaching the victim, Joseph took a “substantial step” toward causing fear. This action clearly qualified as “menacing or frightening activity.”
Furthermore, the court concluded that Joseph’s intent was evident. He did not merely hold the knife; he opened it and moved toward the victim, stopping only when the threat level shifted with the introduction of a firearm.
“The evidence is thus sufficient to support Appellant’s Section 2701(a)(3) conviction,” the opinion concluded. Consequently, the judgment of sentence was affirmed.
Case Information