Com. v. Degounette, W.
Com. v. Degounette, W. No. 749 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- On Sept. 20, 2015, William Degounette was charged with defiant trespass and obstructing highways after allegedly scalping tickets near the Reedsdale Street exit ramp at Heinz Field.
- Sergeant Stephen Matakovich (Pittsburgh PD) testified he received a report of a bicyclist stopping traffic to scalp tickets; he located Degounette off the ramp later that day.
- Matakovich testified Degounette had been warned multiple prior times not to be on Heinz Field property or stop traffic; Degounette said he would continue scalping and was arrested.
- At bench trial the Commonwealth relied on the affidavit of probable cause and preliminary hearing testimony; Matakovich was its sole witness.
- The trial court acquitted Degounette of defiant trespass but convicted him of a third-degree misdemeanor for obstructing highways (18 Pa.C.S. § 5507) and sentenced him to one year probation.
- On appeal the Commonwealth conceded the evidence was insufficient; the Superior Court reversed the conviction and vacated sentence for lack of proof that Degounette rendered the ramp "impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove obstruction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5507 (rendering a public passage impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard) | Commonwealth argued Degounette stopped traffic on the off-ramp while soliciting tickets, so he obstructed the highway | Degounette argued the record lacks evidence he rendered the ramp impassable or caused unreasonable inconvenience/hazard | Reversed: evidence insufficient — testimony did not establish the ramp was rendered impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard |
Key Cases Cited
- Battaglia v. Commonwealth, 725 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. 1999) (insufficient evidence where testimony lacked factual detail to show roadway was rendered impassable without hazard)
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Estepp v. Commonwealth, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (reciting sufficiency-of-evidence standard and review principles)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (same sufficiency principles cited)