Com. v. Bingham, T., Com. v. Bingham, T. No. 3033 EDA 2016

On May 30, 2016, a Sally Beauty Supply manager observed Bingham and another woman take hair irons and leave without paying; an altercation followed when the manager pursued them.
During the encounter Bingham punched the manager, threatened to use mace, dropped one iron, then grabbed another and left the store.
The Commonwealth charged Bingham with robbery and related offenses; after a preliminary hearing she was held for court on all but conspiracy and later arraigned by information.
Bingham moved to quash the criminal information as to robbery; the trial court granted the motion on September 7, 2016.
The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal arguing the robbery charge should not have been quashed because a prima facie case was established.
The Superior Court considered whether the Commonwealth proved each element of robbery — in particular, whether Bingham inflicted bodily injury or placed the manager in fear of immediate bodily injury, and whether those acts occurred in the course of committing a theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Bingham)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in quashing the robbery charge for lack of a prima facie case	The Commonwealth argued the evidence (threat to use mace and punches while fleeing with stolen property) established each robbery element	Bingham argued the evidence did not establish either bodily injury or fear of immediate bodily injury during the theft	Reversed: sufficient probable cause existed to support robbery; quash was error
Whether threatening to use mace places a victim in fear of immediate bodily injury	Commonwealth: Threat to use mace is objectively likely to cause fear of immediate bodily injury	Bingham: (implied) threats did not occur in the course of the theft or were insufficient to establish robbery	Held: Threat to use mace objectively places a victim in fear of immediate bodily injury; prima facie met
Whether the threat/punches occurred "in the course of committing a theft"	Commonwealth: Threats and physical acts occurred while fleeing/while taking the last item, so were in the course of the theft	Bingham: Physical altercation occurred after the theft was completed, not during the theft	Held: Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, threats/acts occurred in flight/while taking items and thus were "in the course of committing a theft"

Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016) (motion to quash as equivalent to pretrial habeas; standard for prima facie review)
Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa. 2003) (definition of prima facie case for criminal charges)
Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (plenary review of evidentiary sufficiency for prima facie cases)
Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (victim's subjective fear not dispositive; objective inquiry for fear of immediate bodily injury)
Commonwealth v. Weigle, 949 A.2d 899 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussed standard of review though portion abrogated by Dantzler)