Com. v. Reed, S.
216 A.3d 1114
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Owner Theresa Skillman rented the upstairs unit at 65 Summer Street to Shayne Reed and Amber Harris; the property included a larger locked storage shed used by Skillman’s family.
- Neighbors observed Reed and a female (identified at trial as his roommate Harris) inside the shed at night; they were told to leave but returned later.
- After complaints, Skillman’s brother and Skillman inspected the shed and found a broken handle, a new unfamiliar padlock, and many items missing (power tools, a tree stand, clothing).
- Some missing items appeared for sale on Facebook; buyers traced purchases to Amber Harris and sellers who said they bought items from Harris.
- Reed was charged with burglary (18 Pa.C.S. §3502(a)(4)), criminal trespass (18 Pa.C.S. §3503(a)(1)(ii)), and conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. §903) to commit theft and receiving stolen property; a jury convicted him and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Reed's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the shed qualified as a "building" under burglary/criminal trespass statutes | Evidence (locked garage door, screwed man door, locked windows, stored tools) showed an enclosed structure with walls and roof — a "building" | Shed lacked proof of four walls/roof; Commonwealth did not prove it was completely enclosed | Affirmed: shed was a "building" (common meaning = structure with walls and roof); jury could infer enclosure from locks and stored items |
| Whether evidence proved Reed "broke into" the shed (criminal trespass) | Circumstantial evidence (shed secured before incident, broken handle, unfamiliar padlock, witnesses seeing Reed there at night, leaving and returning) supported inference of forced entry | Record silent as to timing of damage; possible the lock was already broken and Reed entered through unlocked door | Affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence for jury to infer Reed gained entry by force ("broke into") |
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove Reed conspired with Harris to steal/receive stolen property | Co-appearance in shed multiple times, living together, witnesses linking Harris to sales of stolen items, and overt acts (disposal/sales) supported inference of shared criminal intent | Identification of the female as Harris and linking specific missing items to Reed/Harris was speculative; insufficient proof of agreement or receipt by Reed/Harris | Affirmed: jury reasonably inferred a conspiratorial agreement and that Harris disposed of stolen items; conspiracy established by circumstances and overt acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 186 A.3d 985 (Pa. Super. 2018) (sufficiency review standard; circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 173 A.3d 1219 (Pa. Super. 2017) (statutory construction principles)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances and overt acts)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes, 871 A.2d 812 (Pa. Super. 2005) (co-conspirator liability for overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 547 A.2d 406 (Pa. Super. 1988) (entry through an unlocked door is not "breaking in" for higher-grade trespass)
- Commonwealth v. Sanders, 42 A.3d 325 (Pa. Super. 2012) (credibility/identification challenges are weight issues, not sufficiency)