Com. v. Beavogui, P.
Com. v. Beavogui, P. No. 414 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- On January 21, 2012, Reginald Hassan went to his car-detailing shop to show a Mercedes-Benz to Pierre Beavogui and a second man for a prospective sale.
- Hassan testified both men, from under ten feet away, pulled handguns and pointed them at him; while the partner covered Hassan, Beavogui searched Hassan’s pockets and took an iPad, a gold chain, and about $49,500 in cash.
- Hassan later reported threats shouted by the assailants (including threats to kill his children) and provided bank withdrawal receipts corroborating large cash on hand; the gold chain was recovered.
- Appellant was later seen at a casino, arrested on January 28, 2013, and fingerprint matches linked him to the vehicle’s paneling; he had no firearms license or permit.
- At a non-jury trial, the court convicted Beavogui of robbery (threatening serious bodily injury) and possession of an instrument of crime; he was sentenced to an aggregate 5–11 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Beavogui challenged sufficiency of the evidence as to (1) threatening or placing Hassan in fear of immediate serious bodily injury and (2) possession of an instrument of crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery (threat of immediate serious bodily injury) | Commonwealth: testimony showed defendants drew and pointed firearms at close range, objectively placing victim in fear | Beavogui: victim did not testify he subjectively feared serious injury; victim acted defiantly and pursued assailants, undermining fear claim | Affirmed — objective standard applies; firearm display at <10 ft. supports finding of fear and robbery conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of an instrument of crime | Commonwealth: victim’s direct, detailed identification of firearm and its use in robbery proves possession and criminal intent | Beavogui: no firearm recovered; victim’s testimony alone insufficient | Affirmed — single witness testimony can establish possession; use during robbery shows criminal intent |
| Credibility/inconsistencies of victim’s testimony | Commonwealth: trial court entitled to credit victim; rule-of-law favors viewing all evidence in light most favorable to verdict | Beavogui: pointed to inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence to challenge account | Rejected — credibility attacks implicate weight, not sufficiency; any weight challenge waived; record supports conviction |
| Requirement of physical recovery of weapon or items taken | Commonwealth: recovery not required to sustain conviction; victim testimony sufficient | Beavogui: argued absence of recovered firearm and inconsistencies undercut convictions | Rejected — law does not require recovery of weapon or stolen items to prove offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency review standard; evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2009) (robbery fear element assessed objectively)
- Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appearance/use of firearm likely to inflict fear of deadly injury)
- In re R.N., 951 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 2008) (possession proven by actual control or power to control weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (single witness testimony may suffice to prove possession of instrument of crime)
- Commonwealth v. Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2005) (use of weapon during robbery establishes criminal intent to employ it)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2003) (recovery of stolen items or weapon not required to support conviction)