305 A.3d 573
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- At a Halloween party in York City, two successive altercations occurred involving appellant Lastacia Griffith and the victim; the victim later realized her navy blue iPhone 12 was missing.
- The victim and others called the lost phone; Griffith or someone answered initially. A police “ping” showed the phone’s location near Griffith’s home.
- The victim placed a Facebook Messenger call the next day; the played recording shows Griffith respond, “It’s gone bitch, next,” tell the victim to press charges, and hang up. The victim never recovered the phone and bought a replacement for $1,000.
- Griffith testified she and a cousin found a ringing phone on the ground near the second altercation, her cousin answered, they realized it was not Griffith’s phone, and they tossed it back where found; Griffith said she later told the victim the phone was gone.
- A bench trial convicted Griffith of theft of lost, mislaid, or mistakenly delivered property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3924); she was sentenced to one year probation and $1,000 restitution and appealed, arguing insufficient evidence on intent and on failure to take reasonable measures to restore the phone.
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims and affirmed the conviction, finding the Commonwealth proved both the mens rea and failure-to-restore elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Griffith had intent to deprive the owner of the lost phone | Griffith’s statements and conduct (answering calls, later saying “It’s gone,” hanging up) plus fight context permit an inference of intent to deprive | Griffith’s words were expressions of frustration or belief the phone was already gone; picking up and tossing it back shows no intent to withhold | Affirmed: court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer intent to deprive |
| Whether Griffith failed to take reasonable measures to restore the phone | Griffith tossed the phone back on the ground, did not notify police or tell the victim where she found it, and thus failed to take reasonable steps to return it | Leaving the phone where found was a reasonable way to enable recovery and did not constitute concealment or abandonment | Affirmed: court found sufficient evidence she failed to take reasonable measures to restore the property |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review; appellate deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2018) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standard applies equally)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Faulk, 928 A.2d 1061 (Pa. Super. 2007) (mens rea can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence)