Com. v. Purnell, S.
3736 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Purnell and Burinth Keo had a long-term intimate relationship; on Aug. 13, 2014 Purnell visited Keo’s home and, after being rebuffed, set a piece of paper on fire and placed it in a trashcan next to Keo’s grandmother’s minivan. Cushions were added and the fire burned within inches of the vehicle’s gas tank; a bystander extinguished it before major damage occurred.
- Police recovered a lighter from Purnell; Keo identified him and later obtained a temporary PFA against him.
- From custody Purnell sent Keo a prison letter containing threats, obscene sexual language, and references to interfering with her testimony; handwriting/signature were authenticated at trial.
- Purnell was charged with multiple offenses; after a bench trial he was convicted of reckless burning (18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(d)), possession of an instrument of crime, criminal mischief, and misdemeanor harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4)); acquitted of arson, REAP, causing catastrophe, and other counts.
- Sentenced to an aggregate 2–4 years incarceration plus 4 years probation; timely appeal argued sufficiency of evidence for reckless burning and harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for reckless burning (placing vehicle in danger) | Commonwealth: evidence (eyewitness, fire investigator) shows intentional ignition next to vehicle and walking away; supports recklessness | Purnell: was highly agitated; lacked conscious disregard of risk; conduct less culpable | Affirmed: credible testimony and investigator’s opinion support that Purnell consciously disregarded substantial risk, satisfying reckless mens rea |
| Sufficiency for harassment (intent; lewd/threatening communication) | Commonwealth: prison letter contained threats, obscene sexual language, and violated PFA; intent to harass can be inferred from circumstances | Purnell: challenged basis and mental state for harassment conviction | Affirmed: letter constituted lewd/obscene/threatening communication; intent to harass can be inferred; evidence sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (appellate court must view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 30 A.3d 1105 (Pa. 2011) (multiple motives do not negate criminal intent)
- Commonwealth v. Hogan, 468 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 1983) (mens rea may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) requirements; issues not raised waived)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (preservation of issues via Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. Bond, 504 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 1986) (useful guidance on lewd/obscene material and community standards)