Com. v. Burno, D.
Com. v. Burno, D. No. 1572 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- Owner Donna Rayson-Hutchinson owned a house at 527 Camp Street and orally permitted four people (via an agreement with tenant Brenda Hoffman) to live there for a month-to-month arrangement; residents were to pay mortgage, utilities, and make repairs.
- By December 2013 the arrangement ended after repair disputes; Hoffman and most residents moved out by February 2014, but Dominic Burno (appellant) remained.
- Hutchinson repeatedly told Burno to leave, changed locks, had windows boarded, and had the water service terminated, but Burno reconnected water, removed screws, kept belongings there, and sublet rooms to others.
- Hutchinson reported the matter; the Commonwealth charged Burno with criminal trespass (18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a)(1)(i)). A jury convicted him following trial.
- At sentencing Burno received 36 months county intermediate punishment plus restitution, fine, and costs. He appealed, raising jurisdiction, sufficiency, and a jury-question issue about eviction law.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Burno's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Subject-matter jurisdiction — whether landlord/tenant nature required magisterial court exclusive jurisdiction | Criminal trespass is a Crimes Code offense; courts of common pleas have original jurisdiction over Crimes Code prosecutions | The dispute was a landlord/tenant matter for the magisterial district judge; thus common pleas lacked jurisdiction | Denied — common pleas had jurisdiction because this is a criminal trespass prosecution under the Crimes Code |
| 2) Sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing lack of license/privilege to remain | Evidence showed Burno remained after lease ended, ignored repeated orders to vacate, reconnected utilities, removed boardings, and sublet — proving knowledge and intent | Burno claimed tenant status and that no formal eviction notice was served, so he retained the right to stay | Affirmed — evidence, viewed in Commonwealth's favor, established Burno knowingly remained without privilege, supporting conviction |
| 3) Trial court's refusal to answer jury question about whether an owner can evict without filing paperwork | Eviction procedures are civil landlord/tenant law and irrelevant to the criminal trespass charge | Jury's question about lawful eviction was relevant to whether Burno had a right to remain | Affirmed — court properly refused because the jury's question concerned civil eviction procedure, not elements of criminal trespass |
Key Cases Cited
- Robert Half Int'l, Inc. v. Marlton Techs., Inc., 902 A.2d 519 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard of review for questions of law and jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Crimes Code prosecutions fall within courts of common pleas' original jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Seiders, 11 A.3d 495 (Pa. Super. 2010) (courts of common pleas competent to hear Crimes Code matters)
- Commonwealth v. Namack, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1995) (sufficiency review and mens rea requirement for criminal trespass)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 559 A.2d 579 (Pa. Super. 1989) (criminal trespass involves entering or remaining while knowing lack of license)
- Commonwealth v. White, 492 A.2d 32 (Pa. Super. 1985) (purpose of criminal trespass statute)
- Commonwealth v. Groft, 623 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1993) (repeated oral demands to leave can satisfy mens rea for trespass)
- Commonwealth v. Carter, 393 A.2d 660 (Pa. 1978) (mens rea element discussion in trespass context)