Com. v. Gall, D.
Com. v. Gall, D. No. 1468 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 5, 2017Background
- Darlene M. Gall was charged after entering her neighbor Gloria Hieter’s property on July 14, 2015, cutting down a 20–25 foot apple-tree limb with an electric chainsaw and hauling it to her driveway.
- Gall admitted cutting the limb but said she did so to clear a grassy easement/right-of-way that she used to access her property and to ensure emergency vehicles could reach her home.
- A Magisterial District Judge convicted Gall of simple criminal trespass (18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b.1)(1)(iii)); after a de novo summary appeal hearing, the Court of Common Pleas affirmed and imposed a fine and costs.
- The trial court credited testimony that Hieter never granted permission, received no notice from Gall, and that Gall entered Hieter’s land and cut the branch; an investigating officer testified Gall admitted the conduct.
- The court relied on circumstantial evidence (time/manner of entry, Gall going several steps onto neighbor’s property, cutting when Hieter was likely absent) to infer Gall knew she lacked permission to damage the tree.
- Gall appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to prove she knew she was not privileged to enter, and (2) the trial court improperly rejected a necessity/justification defense; the court found the second issue waived for procedural reasons and rejected the sufficiency claim on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence supported conviction for simple trespass (knowledge element) | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (time/manner, admission, testimony that Gall went onto neighbor’s land and cut limb) permits inference Gall knew she lacked permission | Gall: Commonwealth offered no proof she knew she was not permitted (no posting, no notice, she didn’t testify to knowledge) | Held: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove Gall knew she was not licensed or privileged to damage the tree; conviction stands |
| Availability of necessity/justification defense | Commonwealth: (implicitly) statutory trespass framework and facts do not support necessity defense or it was irrelevant | Gall: she acted to avoid greater harm (blocked easement could prevent emergency access), so necessity justified entering neighbor’s property | Held: Waived — Gall failed to preserve the defense in her concise statement; trial court also treated civil principles about trimming at the property line as distinct from claimed necessity |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 477 A.2d 1342 (Pa. Super. 1984) (knowledge element may be inferred from time and manner of entry)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 124 A.3d 327 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing defiant trespass where notice/posting is required)
- Jones v. Wagner, 624 A.2d 166 (Pa. Super. 1993) (civil rule that adjacent landowner may cut offending vegetation at property line)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (statutory‑construction principle that omission of language in one provision can be deliberate)