In a recent published decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court provided useful, fact-specific guidance on what conduct can qualify as simple assault by physical menace under Pennsylvania law. The case, Commonwealth v. Brenton Joseph, 2026 PA Super 1, is instructive because it illustrates how threatening behavior—even without physical contact—can still result in a misdemeanor conviction.
Under Pennsylvania law, a person can commit simple assault if they attempt by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. This provision does not require actual injury or physical contact. Instead, the focus is on:
- Menacing or frightening physical conduct,
- A substantial step toward causing fear, and
- An intent to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
The statute is designed to capture situations where someone intends to frighten another person, even if they never actually strike them.
The Facts That Mattered
In this case, the defendant went back to a hotel he stayed at days before and became angry after being told there were no available rooms. What followed escalated quickly:
- He yelled, kicked a door, and remained on the property after being told to leave.
- He argued with a hotel employee outside the building.
- During the confrontation, he removed a folding knife (“a simple pocket knife”) from his pocket, opened the blade, and approached the employee while continuing to yell.
- The employee’s wife, who was legally armed, displayed her firearm only after the knife was produced and the defendant advanced.
- The defendant made some additional aggressive comments, made a statement to the effect of bringing “gun to a knife fight,” then he stopped approaching only when he saw the gun and then left.
No one was physically injured. No blows were struck. But the confrontation lasted long enough (25 minutes)—and escalated far enough—for police involvement and criminal charges.
Why the Superior Court Found the Evidence Sufficient
The defendant argued on appeal that this conduct was not enough to prove simple assault by physical menace. The Superior Court disagreed.
The Court emphasized several critical facts:
- The knife was opened, not merely displayed.
- The defendant advanced toward the victim, rather than remaining stationary.
- The conduct occurred during a heated confrontation.
- The defendant stopped only when faced with an armed response.
- A knife is inherently capable of causing serious bodily injury.
Here, Appellant was intoxicated and acting in an openly violent manner towards the Victim. Appellant then brandished a knife, opened the blade, and began approaching the Victim with the knife in his hand. Appellant only stopped his approach when he saw that the Victim’s wife had a gun – and Appellant then openly admitted that he intended to use the knife to fight the Victim.
A knife is obviously capable of inflicting serious bodily injury upon a person. Further, the evidence demonstrates that: Appellant attempted to put the Victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury when he walked towards the Victim with the open-bladed knife in his hand; Appellant took a substantial step towards placing the Victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury when he brandished the knife, opened its blade, and began walking towards the Victim; Appellant’s use of the knife and his approach towards the Victim constituted a “menacing or frightening activity;” and, Appellant intended to place the Victim in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by walking towards him with an open-bladed knife in his hand.
Taken together, these facts showed more than angry words or poor judgment. They demonstrated an intentional, menacing act designed to instill fear of imminent serious bodily injury—which is exactly what the statute prohibits.
The Key Takeaway
This decision reinforces an important point: physical menace does not require physical contact.
Displaying a weapon, opening it, and moving toward another person during a confrontation can be enough—particularly when the surrounding circumstances show aggression, escalation, and intent to frighten.
This case is a reminder that conduct short of physical violence can still carry serious criminal consequences. It serves as a guidepost for evaluating when threatening behavior crosses the legal threshold into criminal assault.
If you or someone you care about is facing assault charges based on allegations of threatening behavior, these cases are highly fact-dependent and require careful legal analysis.