Com. v. Reich, V.
Com. v. Reich v. No. 1061 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Appellant Vincent H. Reich was convicted of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(ii) for threatening immediate serious bodily injury during a bank theft.
- At trial Reich twice told the teller he would “hurt” someone if she did not comply; he had his hand in his pocket but did not cover his face, wear gloves, or make aggressive physical movements toward the teller.
- The dissent (Judge Bender) concludes the evidence did not show a threat of serious bodily injury (as defined by Commonwealth law), only non‑specific threats of harm.
- The dissent distinguishes Commonwealth v. Bragg (where the robber disguised himself, pounded the counter, and used menacing conduct) from Reich’s less overt conduct.
- The dissent warns the Majority’s reasoning (and Bragg) risks conflating the distinct robbery subsections for threats of serious bodily injury and threats of bodily injury.
- The opinion notes Reich received a mandatory 10‑year minimum under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 and flags ongoing Supreme Court review of that provision (via Bragg) as potentially relevant to Reich’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(ii) (threat of immediate serious bodily injury) | Commonwealth: Reich’s words and conduct during the theft amounted to a threat of serious bodily injury sufficient for robbery conviction | Reich: Threats were non‑specific; no weapon shown or overt menacing conduct to indicate risk of death or serious permanent injury | Dissent (Bender, P.J.E.): Evidence insufficient to prove threat of serious bodily injury; would reverse conviction |
| Validity/impact of mandatory minimum sentence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714 | Commonwealth: Court bound by existing precedent upholding § 9714; sentence stands pending higher‑court ruling | Reich: May challenge mandatory minimum if Supreme Court later finds § 9714 unconstitutional (as raised in Bragg) | Dissent: Notes constitutional question pending before Supreme Court; acknowledges Superior Court precedent currently binds result |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (panel decision addressing robbery threats and robber’s menacing conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2009) (definition of serious bodily injury under Pennsylvania law)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Superior Court precedent upholding § 9714 against Alleyne challenge)
- Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of stare decisis and following controlling precedent)