Com. v. Reese, K.
Com. v. Reese, K. No. 736 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Reese was convicted by a jury of two counts of conspiracy to commit burglary (Rhueville Rd and Farley Ln), two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal trespass, one count of conspiracy to commit theft by unlawful taking, and one count of receiving stolen property; seven underlying substantive counts were nolle prossed or mistried.
- Evidence showed Reese stayed at co-defendant Trout’s home with co-defendants Hanes and Phillips in April 2015; Hanes and Phillips testified about multiple burglaries and removal of guns, tools, and other items that were later stored at Trout’s.
- Hanes and Trout implicated Reese as participating in at least two burglaries and in moving stolen items to Trout’s; Trout also drove others to sell stolen items and testified Reese sold or disposed of some items (including at a flea market).
- Phillips (defense witness and co-defendant) testified Reese was not present or involved and claimed Trout asked him to change his testimony; Wheeler’s testimony was used by defense to suggest Reese’s absence at some sales.
- Trooper Shaffer recovered stolen items (tools, rifle, ammunition, duffel bag with victim’s name) from Ms. Wheeler and from Trout’s residence; Hanes identified the victim residences and described Reese’s role in at least one entry.
- Trial court sentenced Reese to an aggregate 54 to 120 months’ imprisonment; Reese appealed arguing insufficient evidence and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conspiracy and receiving convictions | Commonwealth: circumstantial proof (cohabitation at Trout’s, joint trips, transport and sale of stolen items, recovered property) supports inference of agreement and possession/receipt | Reese: only Hanes implicated him; Phillips exculpatory; Wheeler’s testimony undercuts involvement; no direct evidence of his possession of stolen property | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, circumstantial "web of evidence" was sufficient to prove conspiracy and receipt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Weight of the evidence (motion for new trial) | Commonwealth: jury appropriately credited witnesses who linked Reese to the conspiracies and sales | Reese: Phillips’ testimony and alleged inconsistencies among witnesses render verdict against the weight of the evidence | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility conflicts for jury to resolve; verdict did not shock conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency review standard and treating circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Irvin, 134 A.3d 67 (Pa. Super. 2016) (circumstantial evidence and "web of evidence" for conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (agreement inferred from relations, participation, and surrounding conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (conspiracy inference from close relationships, joint presence, and inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (conspiracy to commit burglary where coordinated entry and flight supported agreement)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard and deference for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (trial judge’s role in weight review)
- Commonwealth v. Page, 59 A.3d 1118 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (finder of fact may believe all, part, or none of evidence)