Com. v. Robinson, H.
Com. v. Robinson, H. No. 2434 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- On Aug. 19, 2015, officers heard gunfire and within 10–15 seconds observed Robinson and two co-defendants running from the vicinity of the shooting toward a courtyard and an unattended, running white Oldsmobile.
- Police intercepted the three as they attempted to enter the running vehicle and placed them in handcuffs; officers recovered three firearms and multiple 9mm fired cartridge casings (FCCs) along the defendants’ flight path, about 20 yards from where the men were stopped.
- It was stipulated at trial that Robinson was prohibited from possessing a firearm (no valid license) and that the FCCs matched two of the recovered firearms; one firearm was inoperable.
- Robinson and co-defendants were tried jointly in a non-jury trial; the court convicted Robinson of persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S. §6105) and possession of an instrument of crime (PIC, 18 Pa.C.S. §907), and acquitted on other charges.
- Trial court sentenced Robinson to an aggregate 7–15 years’ imprisonment; Robinson challenged sufficiency and weight of the evidence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Whether the Commonwealth proved Robinson constructively possessed a firearm | Circumstantial evidence (flight from shooting, guns found along their path, running unattended car ready for a rapid getaway, FCCs matching guns) links Robinson to at least one firearm | No direct proof: no DNA/fingerprints on guns; many residents had access to the courtyard; Robinson was running because someone shot at him; presence near scene is insufficient | Court affirmed: totality of circumstances (timely flight from shooting, flight path with guns/FCCs, running unattended car) supports constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Weight: Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Trial court's credibility determinations of police testimony and circumstantial evidence support verdict | Verdict relies on speculation; lack of direct physical connection to guns warrants new trial | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict does not shock the conscience |
Key Cases Cited
- Antidormi v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial-evidence convictions)
- Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition and test for constructive possession/ conscious dominion)
- Carter v. Commonwealth, 450 A.2d 142 (Pa. Super. 1982) (constructive possession can be inferred from location of weapon and defendant's actions immediately after stop)
- Monroe v. Commonwealth, 422 A.2d 193 (Pa. Super. 1980) (handgun qualifies as an instrument of crime for PIC)