Com. v. Bazemore, W.
1155 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- On Aug. 14, 2014, Bazemore entered a family residence at ~8:20 p.m.; no one in the home knew him or had given permission to enter.
- Inside, he approached a 10‑year‑old boy saying “I want you,” then grabbed a pot lid and a steak knife and banged them over his head.
- The family fled the house; Bazemore picked up a cane and began striking walls and furniture, causing audible destruction and breaking glass.
- Police arrived, saw Bazemore with a knife, ordered him to drop it three times, and arrested him after he complied; officers observed ongoing vandalism and later determined damage exceeded $30,000.
- After a bench trial the court convicted Bazemore of first‑degree burglary and criminal mischief and sentenced him to 3–6 years’ imprisonment plus 3 years’ probation; Bazemore appealed claiming insufficient evidence of intent at entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bazemore entered the home with intent to commit a crime | Commonwealth: totality of circumstances supports that Bazemore intended to commit a crime when he entered | Bazemore: entry was an "utterly spontaneous impulse," not a preformed criminal intent; committing crimes inside doesn't prove intent at entry | Court affirmed: circumstantial evidence (failure to leave, threatening conduct, subsequent vandalism) permits inference of intent at entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Commonwealth may rely on circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court defers to fact‑finder on credibility and weight)
- Commonwealth v. Crowson, 405 A.2d 1295 (Pa. Super. 1979) (mere commission of a crime inside does not alone establish intent at entry)
- Commonwealth v. Eck, 654 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super. 1995) (intent assessed from totality of attendant circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Alston, 651 A.2d 1092 (Pa. 1994) (prosecution need only prove general criminal intent, not a specific crime)