Com. v. Quijano, E.
1923 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- On Nov. 18, 2015, at ~9:55 PM Jonathan King awoke to loud metal-banging at his home and observed his neighbor, Elliott Quijano, with arms stretched through an open window into King's house. King testified Quijano had his palms up and was pulling on the interior window; the window had been opened ~16 inches.
- King testified Quijano did not have permission to be inside or reach into the residence; the neighbors shared a back porch and had an ongoing dispute over Quijano’s porch behavior.
- Quijano admitted touching the window but claimed he was merely trying to close it; the trial court found his testimony not credible given the positioning of his arms and the disturbance caused.
- Quijano was convicted at a bench trial of attempted criminal trespass (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3503, 901(a)) and sentenced to 11.5–23 months incarceration plus probation; he filed post-sentence motions and a timely appeal arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence.
- The trial court rejected Quijano’s version, found the Commonwealth proved an attempted entry and lack of license, and concluded the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Quijano's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was there sufficient evidence Quijano intended to enter the house (attempted trespass)? | Evidence showed lack of permission, Quijano’s arm passed through/into window, substantial step toward entry; no specific criminal intent required for trespass entry. | He only touched the window to close it; no intent to enter. | Held: Sufficient evidence of attempted criminal trespass; conviction affirmed. |
| Weight: Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (shocking to conscience)? | King's credible testimony, disturbance, and prior dispute support finding; factfinder properly rejected defendant’s account. | His account was credible; conviction inconsistent with facts. | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against weight of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 506 Pa. 469, 485 A.2d 1102 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 284 Pa. Super. 435, 426 A.2d 126 (no specific criminal intent element required for trespass entry)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514 (prescriptive-right belief can negate mens rea for trespass)
- Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 419 Pa. Super. 251, 615 A.2d 350 (entry can include passing an arm through a window)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 223 Pa. Super. 75, 297 A.2d 151 (definitions of entry relevant to trespass)
- Leach v. Commonwealth, 636 Pa. 81, 141 A.3d 426 (addressing constitutionality of certain subsections of the trespass statute; not dispositive here)