Com. v. Metcalf, Z.
Com. v. Metcalf, Z. No. 1319 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Over a one-month period in 2015, Zachary Metcalf intentionally set ten fires in unoccupied structures (eight in Beaver Falls, two in White Township).
- Police observed Metcalf entering an abandoned house on Sept. 28, 2015, arrested him, and obtained written and recorded confessions in which he admitted setting the fires.
- Cases were consolidated; Metcalf waived a jury and proceeded to a non-jury trial.
- The parties stipulated that the structures were unoccupied, intentionally burned, and were property of another without Metcalf’s authority.
- The trial court convicted Metcalf of multiple arson counts including one count of Arson Endangering Persons for the fire at 1801 West Avenue; he was sentenced to 4–8 years.
- On appeal Metcalf challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for Arson Endangering Persons (whether he recklessly placed another person in danger of death or bodily injury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Metcalf recklessly placed another person in danger (Arson Endangering Persons) | Commonwealth: Chief Stowe’s eyewitness testimony showed the 1801 West Avenue house was fully engulfed, emitted radiant heat and embers, and threatened two occupied neighboring homes, forcing firefighters to relocate residents and protect those homes. | Metcalf: Commonwealth failed to prove any person was actually injured or that danger to persons (not just buildings) was established; Chief Stowe was not offered as an expert to a professional degree of certainty. | Affirmed: Testimony that neighboring homes were occupied, threatened by radiant heat/embers, and that residents were moved established reckless placement of persons in danger beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (firefighter testimony that a fire could spread to nearby residences supported arson endangering persons conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119 (Pa. Super. 2013) (de novo review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (sufficiency may be established with circumstantial evidence)