Com. v. Robinson, L.
2976 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- At ~1:22 a.m. on January 8, 2015, bartender Victoria Cruz was handed a $100 bill by Lacione Robinson at the Red Barn bar; the owner inspected it and concluded it was counterfeit. Robinson fled when identified.
- Manager/security Jeffrey Roberts chased Robinson; during the chase Robinson shouted he would shoot Roberts and made a finger-gun gesture, then threw an object that shattered glass behind Roberts.
- Plainclothes Officer Kyle Pammer saw the chase and relayed it to uniformed officers Koons and Schlegel, who pursued and apprehended Robinson in an alley. Robinson discarded a wad of bills while fleeing.
- Officers found multiple $100 bills with matching questionable serial numbers at the bar and the discarded wad; a Secret Service agent testified the bills were counterfeit and lacked security features.
- Robinson was convicted by a jury of forgery (uttering counterfeit currency), terroristic threats, simple assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and the court found him guilty of public drunkenness; he was sentenced to an aggregate 16–32 months’ imprisonment plus probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery (uttering) | Commonwealth: bills were counterfeit, Robinson passed one and fled; intent can be inferred from conduct | Robinson: no direct proof he knew bills were counterfeit; no unusual conduct showing guilty knowledge | Conviction affirmed — flight, discarding bills, matching serial numbers and expert ID supported intent to defraud |
| Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats | Commonwealth: words and gesture constituted a threat to commit violence with intent to terrorize or reckless disregard | Robinson: gesture/threat were not serious; intoxication undercuts requisite intent | Conviction affirmed — victim reasonably perceived a threat; intent to terrorize may be inferred from words and conduct |
| Weight of the evidence challenge | Commonwealth: jury verdict reasonable given testimony and physical evidence | Robinson: verdict shocks justice because proof of knowledge and serious intent lacking | Trial court did not abuse discretion — jury credibility determinations upheld |
| Sentencing/procedural posture | Commonwealth: sentence within statutory bounds after post-sentence modification | Robinson: (no separate sentencing claim raised on appeal) | Judgment of sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 682 A.2d 811 (Pa. Super. 1996) (elements of forgery)
- Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2001) (intent to defraud required but success not necessary)
- Commonwealth v. Carson, 592 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Super. 1991) (flight can support inference of guilty knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Tizer, 684 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1996) (elements of terroristic threats)
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 664 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1995) (intent to terrorize may be inferred; direct communication not required)
- Commonwealth v. Fenton, 750 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (ability to carry out threat and victim’s fear not required elements)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standards for weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (trial court discretion on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2008) (deference to trial court denial of new trial on weight grounds)