Com. v. Mears, K.
3386 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Kareem Mears was tried and convicted after a bench trial for receiving stolen property (RSP) and attempted retail theft for taking two comforters from Macy’s.
- Security manager Michael Mowery observed Mears stop in the fire lane near the store entrance, enter, pick up two comforters from a display near the door, and walk quickly through the exit doors.
- Mowery, aware of a known “door hit” tactic (quick grab from a door display and rapid exit to a waiting vehicle), radioed Officer Andrew Gibbs.
- Officer Gibbs parked to observe Mears’s vehicle unseen, watched Mears exit the store carrying the comforters, and saw Mears look directly at Gibbs’s marked police car before turning and re-entering the store.
- After discussion, Gibbs arrested Mears and charged him with attempted retail theft and RSP; Mears appealed claiming insufficient evidence of intent to steal (arguing he forgot to pay and attempted to return immediately upon realizing it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Mears intended to deprive Macy’s of the comforters (for RSP and attempted retail theft) | Commonwealth: testimony and circumstances support an inference of intent to steal (pattern of “door hit,” quick entry/exit, looking at waiting vehicle) | Mears: he forgot to pay and tried to return immediately upon realizing his mistake, so intent to steal is not proved | The court held the evidence was sufficient; the finder of fact reasonably inferred intent to steal and affirmed convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dale, 836 A.2d 150 (Pa. 2003) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Commonwealth need not eliminate every possibility of innocence; doubts resolved by fact-finder)
- Commonwealth v. Kinney, 863 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility or weight)
- Commonwealth v. Woong Knee New, 47 A.2d 450 (Pa. 1946) (evidence is insufficient only when two equally reasonable, inconsistent inferences exist)
- Commonwealth v. Shapiro, 297 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. 1972) (distinguishable precedent where absence of concealment undermined inference of intent to steal)