Com. v. Hibshman, H.
1203 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2016Background
- Appellant Heath Hibshman worked at a rooming house (9th Street Personal Care Facility) and was entrusted by residents Timothy Schaeffer and Jeffrey Kalina to hold money in a locked medicine cabinet.
- Kalina gave Hibshman $320 for safekeeping and withdrew small amounts on several occasions; later he requested money that was not returned and was told to check another facility where it was not found.
- Facility owner David Sanders found labeled, empty envelopes from the locked cabinet showing amounts missing; he confronted Hibshman, who admitted taking the money and said he would pay it back but did not.
- Officer McKinney investigated; Hibshman again admitted taking the money. Charges for theft by unlawful taking were filed and a jury convicted Hibshman.
- During trial Sanders briefly testified he gave Hibshman time to repay because Hibshman had "just got out of jail;" the defense moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied and instead gave a curative instruction to the jury.
- Post-sentence motions challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence and seeking a mistrial were denied; the Superior Court affirmed the conviction and sentence (4–23 months, $100 fine, $220 restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did Commonwealth prove Hibshman unlawfully took the money? | Commonwealth: testimony showed Hibshman admitted taking funds and lacked authorization. | Hibshman: others (e.g., Sanders) had access to the cabinet and could have taken the money; routine use of residents' funds for house needs meant he had authority. | Affirmed — admissions to Sanders and Officer McKinney plus testimony that he lacked authorization satisfied sufficiency. |
| Weight of the evidence: Should verdict be set aside as against the weight? | Commonwealth: jury credibility determinations supported verdict. | Hibshman: jury improperly credited Sanders despite his access and delay in reporting missing funds. | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock conscience. |
| Mistrial for prejudicial prior-incarceration remark: Was curative instruction inadequate? | Commonwealth: remark was inadvertent; curative instruction cured any prejudice. | Hibshman: reference to prior jail was highly prejudicial and warranted mistrial. | Affirmed — no flagrant abuse; comment was fleeting, not exploited, and the court's instruction was adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- Karkaria v. Commonwealth, 625 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1993) (each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Chambers v. Commonwealth, 599 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1991) (view evidence in the light most favorable to verdict-winner)
- Stilley v. Commonwealth, 689 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (standards for mistrial and curative instruction)
- Bracey v. Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 2003) (review of mistrial denial and appellate deference)
- Richardson v. Commonwealth, 437 A.2d 1162 (Pa. 1981) (curative instructions can remove taint of improper testimony)