227 A.3d 453
Pa. Commw. Ct.2020Background
- In August 2016 Redovan placed a salt block and corn near a tree stand, then removed visible bait more than 30 days before archery season.
- On August 25 he discovered a large pile of corn (not his) about 70 yards from his stand, reported it to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and removed that corn.
- A Game Commission officer later inspected the area, tasted soil near Redovan’s stand and later lab-tested soil showing elevated sodium; the officer did not post the area around the discovered corn.
- On opening day the officer observed Redovan hunting from his tree stand and cited him for hunting over bait under 34 Pa.C.S. §2308(a)(8).
- At the de novo trial the Commonwealth’s evidence focused on salt residue at Redovan’s stand (not the corn); the trial court nonetheless relied on the corn and convicted Redovan.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, concluding the citation failed to give fair notice (it prosecuted/relied on facts not presented) and the evidence was insufficient to show the corn 70 yards away acted as an effective lure; the court also criticized the Commission’s failure to post the corn area.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Redovan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether citation fairly notified defendant of charged conduct | Citation sufficiently tracked §2308(a)(8) and put defendant on notice of a baiting charge | Citation and officer’s statements referred to salt residue only; defendant lacked notice he was charged for the distant corn | Conviction reversed — citation did not fairly notify Redovan of prosecution based on the corn; trial relied on facts not in the citation or officer’s admonition |
| Whether Game Commission’s failure to post the discovered corn was prejudicial | Posting is discretionary; no prejudice argued | Commission failed to post reasonable area around discovered corn after report, depriving hunters of notice | Reversal reinforced by failure to post; lack of posting made conviction unfair in context of defendant’s report and compliance efforts |
| Sufficiency of evidence — whether corn 70 yards away constituted a “baited area” (reasonable-hunter standard) | Proximity and defendant’s own concern that corn was “so close” supported that the corn acted as an effective lure | Commonwealth failed to prove the corn’s capacity to lure this hunter (no evidence re: bow range, visibility, terrain, or that corn was an effective lure) | Conviction reversed for insufficiency — Commonwealth did not prove the corn acted as an effective lure under the reasonable-hunter standard |
| As-applied vagueness of §2308(a)(8) re: invisible salt residue | Statute is enforceable; residue concept reasonable | Statute vague as applied re: acceptable residual salt and remediation; unclear notice | Court declined to decide vagueness because disposition on other grounds and Redovan was not convicted for salt residue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Borriello, 696 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (citation must set forth essential elements of summary offense to give fair notice)
- Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 114 A.3d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (defendant must receive clear notice of charges; lack of clarity causes prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Sellinger, 763 A.2d 525 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (adopts "reasonable hunter" standard: baited area defined by bait’s capacity to lure the particular hunter)
- United States v. Chandler, 753 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1985) (federal precedent defining baited area by capacity to act as an effective lure)
- Commonwealth v. Donovan, 829 A.2d 759 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (affirming baiting conviction where corn was closely proximate to hunter)
- Poff v. Commonwealth, 609 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (affirming conviction where hunter was observed scattering cracked corn and hunting adjacent to it)
- Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (preclusion of relitigation principles cited regarding trial-court findings)
- Commonwealth v. Crenshaw, 470 A.2d 451 (Pa. 1983) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 482 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1984) (limitations on trial court’s authority to amend sentencing order)
- Commonwealth v. Dzvonick, 297 A.2d 912 (Pa. 1972) (procedural law on post-sentencing relief)
- Commonwealth v. Borrin, 12 A.3d 466 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural principles on post-conviction/sentencing matters)