Com. v. Reich, V.
Com. v. Reich v. No. 1061 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- On May 29, 2015, Vincent H. Reich entered a Citizens Bank branch wearing a large hoodie on a hot day, handed teller Cecilia Frazier a note reading “just give up the drawer and nobody gets hurt,” and kept his right hand inside his sweatshirt pouch while his left hand remained visible.
- Reich yelled at Frazier to hurry, counted down from ten, and left the bank with the cash after Frazier complied; the encounter lasted about 90 seconds.
- At trial Reich testified he was suffering heroin withdrawal, had no weapon, put his hand in his pocket to hide identifying tattoos, and intended only to obtain money quickly for drugs, not to threaten serious bodily injury.
- A non-jury trial resulted in convictions on two robbery counts: one under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) (threatens or puts another in fear of immediate serious bodily injury) and one under § 3701(a)(1)(vi) (theft from a financial institution).
- The court sentenced Reich to 10–20 years’ incarceration (mandatory) for the (a)(1)(ii) conviction and 5 years’ consecutive probation for the (a)(1)(vi) conviction. Reich appealed, challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence for the (a)(1)(ii) conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence proved Reich threatened or intentionally put teller in fear of immediate serious bodily injury under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) | Commonwealth: Reich’s aggressive conduct, the note saying “nobody gets hurt,” concealed right hand, loud countdown, and teller’s fear suffice to prove a threat or placing in fear of serious bodily injury | Reich: No explicit verbal threat of serious bodily injury; his conduct showed intent only to obtain money (not to cause or threaten serious bodily injury); teller’s subjective fear is insufficient | Affirmed: Court held aggressive actions and the note/countdown supported (a)(1)(ii) conviction (sufficiency established) |
| Weight: whether verdict shocked conscience such that a new trial is required | Commonwealth: Trial court observed witnesses and reasonably credited teller’s testimony; verdict supported by record | Reich: Evidence favored his testimony; lack of proof he intended to cause fear of serious bodily injury makes verdict against weight of evidence | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock sense of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bragg v. Commonwealth, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (aggressive nonverbal conduct can support conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(ii))
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 459 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1983) (mode of entry and aggressive warnings can imply a threat of serious bodily injury for § 3701(a)(1)(ii))
- Koch v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence linking accused to crime)
- Chamberlain v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (standard for appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Miklos v. Commonwealth, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussing standard for granting a new trial on weight grounds)
- Ostolaza v. Commonwealth, 406 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 1979) (discussing requirements to prove fear of serious bodily injury)