Com. v. Hosko, J.
Com. v. Hosko, J. No. 2079 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Jeffrey John Hosko was convicted following a de novo summary trial of abandoning a vehicle in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3712(a); the fine upheld was $603.50.
- Officer David Mitchell filed multiple parking/abandonment citations after observing vehicles on public streets with flat tires, debris buildup, and apparent long-term nonuse.
- The citation relevant to this appeal charged abandonment of a green Toyota; other consolidated citations involved other vehicles (including a white Ford).
- At trial, Officer Mitchell testified about the condition of the vehicles and that they had not been moved for over 48 hours; he also testified about subsequent tire-chalking checks he performed after filing the citations.
- Hosko testified he is a salvage dealer and admitted he left the green Toyota parked for a couple of weeks after shoulder surgery and could not move it.
- The trial court found Officer Mitchell’s testimony credible and concluded the vehicle met the statutory presumption of abandonment on a "highway." The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hosko) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove abandonment | Officer Mitchell’s credible testimony and physical condition of vehicle proved inoperability and >48 hours unattended | Evidence was conjectural; Commonwealth failed to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient to support finding of abandonment |
| Verdict referencing a different vehicle than charged | Commonwealth relied on testimony about the charged green Toyota (and evidence showed both vehicles met abandonment criteria) | Trial court mistakenly announced guilty as to white Ford; Hosko lacked notice and was prejudiced | Harmless error — slip of the tongue; no prejudice because record and testimony concerned the charged green Toyota and both vehicles met elements |
| Admission of post‑citation tire‑chalking evidence | Testimony about subsequent observations was relevant to consolidated citations and to show ongoing nonuse | Tire‑chalking after citation was irrelevant to the charged offense and improperly bolstered case | Admission not an abuse of discretion; evidence was relevant to other citations and trial court could disregard any inadmissible portions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 81 A.3d 103 (standard of review for de novo summary conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (harmless-error doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 989 A.2d 920 (admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (trial court can disregard inadmissible evidence when serving as factfinder)