Com. v. Fobes, D.
1732 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Daniel Fobes was convicted after a jury trial of reckless burning/exploding, criminal mischief, and conspiracy to commit reckless burning for setting fire to a Ford Explorer.
- The Explorer had been purchased and maintained by Kimberly Stretch but was registered in her husband John Stretch IV’s name to avoid an ignition-interlock requirement.
- Evidence showed Fobes and Kimberly drove the vehicle to a remote location; gasoline was present, an explosion/flames occurred, and Fobes told others he could "take care of" the car and later tried to contact Kimberly to "call it through to insurance."
- Fobes argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient because the car was actually Kimberly’s property (not the "property of another") and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The trial court denied post‑sentence motions; the Superior Court affirmed the convictions and sentence (6 to 23 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether the burned vehicle was "property of another" for reckless burning | Commonwealth: registration/titled owner has a legally significant interest; evidence supports conviction | Fobes: Kimberly purchased and maintained the vehicle, so it was her property, not property of another | Affirmed: registered owner (Mr. Stretch) had an interest; evidence sufficient for reckless burning |
| Sufficiency: criminal mischief (damage to "property of another") | Commonwealth: same basis as reckless burning—registered owner had an interest | Fobes: same ownership argument as above | Affirmed: evidence sufficient given registration in Mr. Stretch’s name |
| Sufficiency: conspiracy to burn | Commonwealth: testimony showed agreement and overt act (burning) | Fobes: Kimberly could not conspire to burn her own car | Affirmed: conspiracy proven; overt act (burn) occurred; ownership argument fails |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: credibility and weight are for jury and trial court to resolve | Fobes: verdict shocks conscience because Kimberly was actual owner | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying weight claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (each element must be established beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Santana, 333 A.2d 876 (Pa. 1975) (evidence inconsistent with physical facts/laws of nature may be insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (reasonable inferences drawn for prosecution on sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discussing sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Kim, 888 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 799 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2002) (a weight challenge concedes sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 923 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review of trial court’s weight rulings is limited to abuse of discretion)