Com. v. Neberdosky, M., Jr., 1590 MDA 2015

Defendant Mark E. Neberdosky Jr. was convicted by a jury of Theft by Unlawful Taking (movable property), Receiving Stolen Property, and Criminal Mischief — tampering with property, arising from the disappearance of a $2,050 security camera system from a public picnic grove.
Earlier surveillance video captured an individual (the Commonwealth alleged Neberdosky) taking an unopened 12-pack of beer from a refrigerated container in the pavilion roughly 36–48 hours before the camera system was reported missing.
The Commonwealth’s theory: Neberdosky returned within 48 hours to steal the surveillance equipment because the camera had recorded him stealing beer.
Trial evidence included the beer-theft video showing the individual glance in the camera’s direction as he left, and witness identifications placing Neberdosky as the person in the video who took the beer.
There was no video of the camera theft (the system had been removed); the picnic grove was open and accessible to the public, and witnesses gave differing descriptions of how secluded or accessible the site was.
Post-conviction, on appeal the Superior Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and concluded the proof was insufficient to show Neberdosky knowingly stole the security system; convictions and sentence were reversed and vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to convict Neberdosky for taking/damaging the security equipment?	The video and witness IDs show Neberdosky was the beer thief and he looked at the camera, supporting an inference he returned to steal it to conceal his theft.	The evidence only shows Neberdosky was present up to 48 hours before the camera was taken; a glance at the camera does not prove he knew it was recording or that he later stole it.	Reversed: evidence insufficient — mere presence and an ambiguous head turn are mere conjecture and do not prove he knowingly stole the system.

Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Stores, 463 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 1983) (presence at scene alone is insufficient; convictions cannot rest on mere surmise)