Com. v. Robinson, R.
78 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Appellant (Robert D. Robinson) renewed a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms using Form SP 4-127 (10-2012) and answered “NO” to several Paragraph 30 questions about disqualifying convictions/commitments.
- The parties stipulated Appellant had prior controlled-substance convictions (2007, 2011) and an involuntary mental-health commitment in 2011.
- Commonwealth charged and the trial court convicted Appellant under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) (unsworn falsification) for making written false statements on the license form.
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced only stipulations of conviction/commitment; Appellant and his father testified that Appellant believed his answers were truthful and that confusion or misinformation explained the responses.
- The trial court relied on the certified convictions/commitment to convict; the dissenting judge (Solano, J.) found the evidence insufficient to prove Appellant believed his answers were false.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Appellant knowingly falsified answers on Form SP 4-127 in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b) | Commonwealth: Stipulated prior convictions and commitment show answers were false and support conviction | Robinson: He was confused by the form wording, relied on counsel/father, believed answers were true, lacked intent to deceive | Dissent (Solano, J.): Evidence insufficient; conviction should be vacated because Commonwealth failed to prove Appellant believed his statements were untrue |
| Whether internal inconsistencies on the form can negate criminal intent | Commonwealth: Form warnings and questions impose duty to answer truthfully; convictions suffice to infer intent | Robinson: Confusing cross-references (back of form, differing imprisonment thresholds) produced good-faith mistakes | Dissent: Form’s internal inconsistencies make confusion reasonable; such confusion defeats proof of knowing falsity |
| Whether stipulations of conviction/commitment alone can establish mens rea for § 4904(b) | Commonwealth: Stipulations establish falsity; jury may infer intent | Robinson: Stipulations do not show state of mind; only his testimony addresses intent | Dissent: Stipulations alone are insufficient; only appellant’s uncontradicted testimony speaks to state of mind and shows confusion/not intent |
| Applicability of Kennedy precedent to similar factual pattern | Commonwealth: Distinguishes Kennedy as involving different form layout | Robinson: Kennedy controls because both involve Form SP 4-127 confusion | Dissent: Kennedy is controlling; similar internal inconsistencies and confusion warrant reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 789 A.2d 731 (Pa. Super. 2001) (reversed § 4904 conviction where confusion over Form SP 4-127 negated knowing falsity)
- Commonwealth v. Libonati, 31 A.2d 95 (Pa. 1943) (proof of intent insufficient where evidence is too weak and inconclusive)
- Mano v. Madden, 738 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 1999) (a jury may not disregard uncontroverted testimony about the events when assessing credibility)