Com. v. Cantwell, R., 1248 EDA 2016

On Nov. 25, 2015, loss-prevention officer John Baran observed Raymond Cantwell select items at Home Depot: a "mailbox in a box," a Milwaukee power tool ($79), and Milwaukee batteries ($99).
Cantwell was seen attempting to remove a security sensor from the batteries, then concealed both Milwaukee items inside his jacket and zipped it partially.
He moved to the greenhouse area, placed the concealed items on a shelf among plants, and paid only for the mailbox; the thermostat he had earlier placed in his cart was missing.
Baran confronted Cantwell as he exited; Cantwell initially refused, attempted to flee, and was physically restrained until police arrived. Cantwell later denied picking up the Milwaukee items and offered to pay for them.
A jury convicted Cantwell of retail theft under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3929(a)(1). The trial court sentenced him to 1–2 years’ imprisonment; Cantwell appealed, challenging evidentiary sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove retail theft (intent to deprive)	Commonwealth: evidence of concealment, attempt to remove security tag, and flight supports inference of intent to permanently deprive merchant	Cantwell: lacked requisite intent to deprive merchant of value; Commonwealth witness not credible	Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (concealment, attempted removal of tag, concealment in store, and flight) sufficient to infer intent and sustain conviction
Weight-of-evidence argument	N/A (commonwealth prevailed at trial)	Cantwell argued Commonwealth witness was not credible (weight claim)	Court: Waived — defendant failed to raise weight claim in trial court; appellate review limited to sufficiency issue

Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Caban v. Commonwealth, 60 A.3d 120 (Pa. Super. 2012) (circumstantial evidence can satisfy Commonwealth's burden)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 446 A.2d 965 (Pa. Super. 1982) (concealment of unpurchased property supports inference of intent to deprive)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 528 A.2d 1360 (Pa. Super. 1987) (concealment under a coat supports presumption of intent)
Dent v. Commonwealth, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt)
Ratsamy v. Commonwealth, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (procedural requirements and appellate review standards)
DeJesus v. Commonwealth, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (distinction between weight and sufficiency claims; weight is for the finder of fact)