Com. v. Adkins, D., Com. v. Adkins, D. No. 160 MDA 2016

On March 17, 2013, a fire destroyed the bedroom/mattress area of Cheryl Barrick’s mobile home in Shippensburg Mobile Estates; investigators concluded the fire was incendiary.
A kerosene lantern was found in the bed remnants; K-9s alerted to possible accelerant; lab testing did not always identify a specific liquid.
David Adkins, who had personal relationships with Barrick and others in the park, was placed at or near the scene by eyewitness testimony and cell‑phone location data.
Adkins made inculpatory statements to witnesses admitting he had done “something bad” to Barrick’s residence.
The Commonwealth also introduced limited evidence about a separate attempted arson at a neighbor’s home hours earlier to show motive; the trial court excluded photos and limited scope.
A jury convicted Adkins of arson endangering persons, arson endangering property, and criminal mischief; the Superior Court affirmed the sentence (aggregate 7–22 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether corpus delecti for arson was established before admitting Adkins’ inculpatory statements	Commonwealth: corpus delecti can be shown by circumstantial and expert lay evidence and was proved by a preponderance	Adkins: evidence equally consistent with accident; statements should have been excluded because corpus delecti not established	Court: waived issue (not timely raised); alternatively, corpus delecti proved and statements properly admitted
Admissibility of evidence regarding a separate attempted arson to show motive	Commonwealth: prior act evidence was probative of motive and closely connected in time/place; limited testimony admissible	Adkins: such evidence was prejudicial and not admissible after severance of charges	Court: trial court properly limited scope, balanced probative value v. prejudice, and did not abuse discretion

Commonwealth v. Herb, 852 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explains corpus delecti rule and that circumstantial evidence may suffice)
Commonwealth v. Smallwood, 442 A.2d 222 (Pa. Super. 1982) (trial court discretion on order of proof and admission reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Chambliss, 847 A.2d 115 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to timely object to admission of confession waives corpus delecti challenge)
Commonwealth v. Moyer, 419 A.2d 717 (Pa. Super. 1980) (to prove arson corpus delecti requires showing a fire occurred and that it was incendiary)
Commonwealth v. Reyes, 681 A.2d 724 (Pa. 1996) (corpus delecti for confession requires proof the evidence is more consistent with crime than accident)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (Rule 404(b) framework: other‑acts evidence admissible for non‑propensity purposes and must be balanced against prejudice)