Com. v. Ondra, J., 1296 WDA 2020

On June 20, 2019 a 10‑year‑old girl was playing in her front yard when a van stopped, backed up, and the driver said something the child reported as, “Get in the van. I’m going to take you home to your daddy.” The child ran inside and the mother called 911.
Police located and stopped a van matching the description; the driver was Jan Ondra. Ondra told officers he was researching tax‑sale properties and had been driving around looking for manhole covers to determine sewer service.
Ondra later went to the police station and gave a voluntary written statement saying he asked whether the children’s parents were home because he needed to speak with an adult about the sewer system.
The Commonwealth charged Ondra with luring a child into a motor vehicle (18 Pa.C.S. § 2910) and amended the information to add interference with custody/attempted interference charges.
The trial court granted Ondra’s pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the Commonwealth had not established a prima facie case because there was no “promise of pleasure or gain” or other enticement beyond a plain invitation or neutral offer of a ride.
The Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the child’s testimony could support a prima facie showing that Ondra attempted to lure or entice the child (the offer to take her to her father could be an enticement).

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Ondra's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence established a prima facie case that Ondra lured/attempted to lure or enticed/attempted to entice the child (and related interference with custody charges)	Backing up the van to a 10‑year‑old stranger and saying “Get in the van. I’m going to take you home to your daddy” is an enticement or promise (pleasure/gain) sufficient for luring/interference.	The statement was a neutral request/offer (mere invitation or innocent inquiry); he was researching properties and asked if parents were home to talk about sewage — mere offer of a ride is not luring.	Superior Court: Reversed habeas grant; prima facie case existed because the child’s testimony could be reasonably accepted as showing an enticement (opportunity to see father) and therefore sufficient to proceed to trial.

Commonwealth v. Hart, 28 A.3d 898 (Pa. 2011) (defines “lure” as a promise of pleasure or gain or other affirmative enticement; mere offer of a ride is generally insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 203 A.3d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explains standard for reviewing pretrial habeas corpus—view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth to determine prima facie case)
Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918 (Pa. Super. 2018) (clarifies prima facie standard at pretrial stage)
Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2001) (discussion of prima facie evidentiary burden)
Commonwealth v. Walker, 139 A.3d 225 (Pa. Super. 2016) (example where affirmative act—grabbing wrist and pulling—supported luring conviction)
Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 599 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Super. 1991) (defines “taking” and “enticing” for interference with custody; emphasizes interruption of lawful custody)