Com. v. McKenzie, J.
225 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 2, 2016Background
- On April 7, 2015, Joseph McKenzie (age 30) was found inside Carmichaels Jr.-Sr. High School (under construction, fenced and posted against trespass) carrying a half-empty vodka bottle; a custodian escorted him out but later saw him re-enter.
- Police located McKenzie on the auditorium roof; officers recovered a penknife from his person.
- McKenzie was charged with possession of a weapon on school property (18 Pa.C.S. § 912(b)) and convicted by a jury of that misdemeanor and of summary trespass and public drunkenness on September 16, 2015.
- Post-trial, new counsel filed motions alleging weight-of-the-evidence error and trial counsel ineffectiveness; the trial court limited its post-sentence review to weight claims and denied relief on January 15, 2016; sentence was time served to 18 months with immediate parole plus fines.
- On appeal, McKenzie argued (1) insufficiency of evidence (lack of mens rea for knowingly possessing a knife on school property), (2) verdict against the weight of the evidence, and (3) trial counsel ineffective assistance.
- The Superior Court affirmed: evidence (including McKenzie’s testimony that he carries the knife daily) supported a knowing possession theory; weight challenge failed; ineffectiveness claims were deferred to PCRA review under Holmes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §912(b) possession on school property | Commonwealth: evidence (custodian, police recovery, defendant on roof) supports conviction | McKenzie: he habitually carried the knife and did not consciously bring it onto school property; lacked mens rea | Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, defendant's testimony that he knowingly carried the knife supports knowing possession |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: jury verdict reasonable given testimony and circumstances | McKenzie: verdict shocks the conscience; Commonwealth relied solely on presence on property | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not so contrary to evidence to merit new trial |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | McKenzie: counsel unprepared, failed to contact witnesses, failed to present plea alternative | Commonwealth: procedural posture — such claims belong in PCRA | Not addressed on merits — deferred to PCRA under Holmes; trial court properly declined to decide on post-sentence motion without developed record |
| Trial court's procedural handling of post-verdict motions | N/A | McKenzie implied relief should be considered now | Affirmed — court limited January hearing to non-PCRA issues and preserved ineffectiveness claims for collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinidad v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor)
- Giordano v. Commonwealth, 121 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§912 not strict liability; Commonwealth must prove intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct under §302)
- Clay v. Commonwealth, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standards for weight-of-the-evidence review and trial court discretion)
- Holmes v. Commonwealth, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims generally deferred to PCRA; limited exceptions explained)