Com. v. Heard, J.
Com. v. Heard, J. No. 2119 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Appellant Jesus Heard was observed driving a vehicle that had been stolen one week earlier and abandoned; four days after abandoning it he approached the vehicle's owner and asked to retrieve personal items.
- At a bench trial the court convicted Heard of receiving stolen property (RSP) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
- Heard appealed, raising (1) sufficiency of the evidence for RSP, (2) a Brady claim based on late disclosure of an insurance claim form, and (3) denial of an opportunity to contest restitution.
- The trial record showed Heard was seen operating the vehicle six days after the theft; he did not present an innocent explanation for possession.
- The Commonwealth produced an insurance claim form only after trial; the record did not establish when the Commonwealth obtained it.
- At sentencing the trial court indicated it would address restitution later but then refused to let Heard present evidence on restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for RSP (guilty knowledge) | Commonwealth: possession within a week of theft and surrounding facts permit inference Heard knew the car was stolen | Heard: mere possession is insufficient; Commonwealth failed to prove he knew or believed the car was stolen | Affirmed conviction — circumstantial evidence (possession six days after theft, absence of innocent explanation) permitted inference of guilty knowledge |
| Brady disclosure of insurance claim form | Commonwealth: no duty to produce documents it did not possess; record doesn’t show when it obtained form | Heard: late disclosure of insurance form would have impeached owner's testimony about vehicle damage and undermined guilty knowledge inference | No relief — record does not establish Commonwealth possessed form pretrial, so no proven Brady violation |
| Right to present evidence on restitution | Commonwealth: framed as discretionary sentencing issue | Heard: trial court prevented him from contesting the amount and denied opportunity to present proffer/evidence | Vacated restitution award and remanded for a full restitution hearing — defendant entitled to adversarial determination and due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (due process requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 128 A.3d 261 (Pa. Super.) (elements of receiving stolen property)
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. Super.) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super.) (circumstantial evidence may prove elements)
- Commonwealth v. Hogan, 468 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super.) (possession within weeks of theft supports inference of guilty knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Dunlap, 505 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super.) (recency can permit inference but other circumstantial evidence may defeat it)
- Commonwealth v. Ovalles, 144 A.3d 957 (Pa. Super.) (prosecutor’s disclosure duty limited to information in possession of government)
- Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 854 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super.) (restitution amount must be determined adversarially to satisfy due process)