Com. v. Dones, D.
2106 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- On October 11, 2014, Officer Jeremy Crist observed David Dones at night in a high‑crime area holding what looked like a metal pipe and a pistol; Dones appeared startled and walked away when the marked patrol car stopped.
- Officer Crist ordered Dones to drop the pistol; Dones waved it, yelled, and ultimately threw it into a yard; the object was later identified as a CO2‑powered BB gun resembling a real firearm.
- Dones removed and shook a fanny pack, ignored repeated commands to keep his hands out of his pockets, jammed his hands into his pockets, and continued yelling; Officer Crist drew his service weapon at times and ultimately handcuffed Dones.
- Officers observed signs of intoxication (alcohol smell, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech); Dones admitted he had consumed alcohol that day.
- Dones was tried by jury (disorderly conduct and resisting arrest convictions) and by judge (summary public drunkenness), sentenced to 24 months probation, and appealed claiming insufficiency of the evidence for both disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct | Commonwealth: Dones’ brandishing of a weapon, yelling, and creating alarm satisfied disorderly conduct elements | Dones: No intent to cause public inconvenience/annoyance or recklessly create risk; no act serving no legitimate purpose | Affirmed — evidence supported conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. §5503(a)(4) given brandishing and yelling after commands to drop weapon |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest — substantial risk/force element | Commonwealth: Dones’ conduct (waving BB gun, putting hands in pockets, forcing officer to retreat/draw weapon) created substantial risk and justified force | Dones: Did not create substantial risk or employ means requiring substantial force; arrest was not lawful | Affirmed — conduct created substantial risk of bodily injury and satisfied resisting arrest definition under 18 Pa.C.S. §5104 |
| Lawfulness of underlying arrest for resisting arrest | Commonwealth: Officer had reasonable suspicion then probable cause (refusal to comply, waving weapon, erratic behavior) to detain and arrest | Dones: Arrest was not lawful so resisting charge fails | Affirmed — initial detention and subsequent arrest were lawful based on totality of circumstances and disorderly conduct facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. Commonwealth, 758 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Thompson v. Commonwealth, 922 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 2006) (disorderly conduct analysis)
- Lyons v. Commonwealth, 555 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 1989) (resisting arrest need not involve serious bodily injury)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 475 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1984) (forcible resistance must involve substantial danger to officer)
- Ramos v. Commonwealth, 920 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super. 2007) (CO2‑powered BB gun can be a deadly weapon capable of serious injury)
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 924 A.2d 618 (Pa. 2007) (lawful arrest is an element relevant to resisting arrest charges)
- Stevenson v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2000) (reasonable suspicion determined by totality of circumstances)