Com. v. Masten, S.
Com. v. Masten, S. No. 917 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 5, 2017Background
- On May 6, 2012, Stephen L. Masten and co‑conspirator Frank Cassiano entered David Phillips's home, assaulted him while he slept, and threatened to kill him.
- The victim was beaten (including blows with a shovel), strangled and smothered, and had his eyes gouged; he suffered permanent blindness and other severe injuries.
- Witnesses placed Masten at the scene and testified to his admissions (e.g., “we're going to kill you,” and later statements boasting of poking out the victim’s eye).
- Forensic evidence (DNA) linked the victim, Cassiano, and Masten to a jacket matching the victim’s description of what Masten wore.
- A jury convicted Masten of attempted murder, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, and burglary; the court sentenced him to 40–80 years imprisonment.
- On appeal Masten contested the sufficiency of the evidence for attempted murder (and purports to challenge burglary but waived that claim by failing to brief it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Commonwealth: evidence (conduct, words, injuries, DNA, accomplice conduct) shows specific intent to kill | Masten: statements on leaving show they hoped victim would live; conduct insufficient to prove intent to kill (eye‑gouging not necessarily indicative of intent to kill) | Affirmed: evidence sufficient—gouging, strangulation, leaving victim to bleed, and express threats support specific intent to kill |
| Sufficiency challenge to burglary | Commonwealth: not separately contested on appeal | Masten: listed in issues but waived by failure to brief | Waived; appellate court declines to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 71 A.3d 998 (standards for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441 (attempt liability and intent inference)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (proof of intent from conduct; single act can suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 980 A.2d 35 (specific intent to kill can be established from brutal conduct and leaving victim to suffocate)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 78 A.3d 644 (deadly force and intent)
- Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (use of deadly weapon on vital part permits inference of intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103 (co‑conspirator’s use of weapon imputable to defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Hornberger, 270 A.2d 195 (jury may infer intent from words and conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Shank, 883 A.2d 658 (severe beating and head injuries support intent to kill)