Com. v. Hosier, D.
Com. v. Hosier, D. No. 1091 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- On Oct. 17, 2014, victim (Jason Green) discovered his car key fob, wallet, and a blue Colt .380 pistol missing after finishing work at Mallard Market; he reported them stolen.
- The store manager and an employee observed Appellant Dietrick Hosier enter the back area near the employee-only restroom where employees kept a tray of personal keys; manager later identified Hosier on store video.
- Video showed a person exiting the store, walking to the rear/employee lot, and movement inside the victim’s red Jeep followed by a person exiting the driver’s side; manager and others identified Hosier in the footage.
- Four witnesses (manager, employee Nace, Officer Broyles, Patrolman Defuso) identified Hosier as the person in the video; Defuso also recognized Hosier’s gait and the white stripe on the sneakers.
- A jury convicted Hosier of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property; he moved for acquittal and a new trial (weight challenge), which the trial court denied. Sentenced to 21 months–4 years imprisonment plus restitution; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hosier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support theft and receiving stolen property convictions | Evidence (video, identifications, witness testimony, circumstantial link to car and missing items) proved the elements | Argued insufficiency generally but failed to identify which elements were unmet; suggested other possible culprits | Waived for inadequate development; court declined to reach merits |
| Verdict against the weight of the evidence | Jury verdict was reasonable based on cumulative evidence; witnesses credible | Asserted contradictions, lack of direct observation by victim, other possible suspects, and less-than-certain ID by one witness | Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not so contrary as to shock one’s sense of justice — weight claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellant must develop sufficiency claim by discussing specific elements)
- Commonwealth v. McDonald, 17 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same principle on sufficiency development)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of weight claims is deferential; trial court’s discretion is paramount)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence rulings limited to palpable abuse of discretion)