Com. v. Setlock, M., Jr.
183 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Victim Fanelli Trucking reported a missing 2001 Ford F-250; the truck was later recovered abandoned in an alley with a broken steering column and a separated door-handle assembly.
- Security video from a nearby business showed two people exiting the recovered truck.
- Anne Marie Reedy (Appellant’s on‑off girlfriend) testified she rode in the F-250 with Appellant on June 2, 2014; they burned copper wire, returned to her home, and Appellant said he would “dump the truck,” later admitting it belonged to Fanelli.
- Reedy identified herself and Appellant in the surveillance video; she also gave a statement to police implicating Appellant.
- A jury convicted Michael Setlock of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property; he was sentenced to 1½–3 years’ imprisonment plus probation and other financial obligations.
- On appeal Setlock challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) weight of the evidence, and (3) the trial court’s refusal to give an accomplice testimony instruction regarding Reedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Setlock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove identity and elements of theft/receiving | Video, victim testimony, officer testimony, and Reedy’s identification provide sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence to prove guilt | Reedy was incredible and motivated to lie; her testimony was the primary (or sole) evidence tying him to the crime | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, evidence was sufficient; jury credibility finding controls |
| Weight of the evidence (verdict against weight) | Evidence was reliable and jury reasonably credited witnesses | Verdict is against the weight because it depended on Reedy’s allegedly unreliable testimony | Trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against weight |
| Accomplice‑testimony jury instruction for Reedy | Not expressly argued by Commonwealth; evidence did not require accomplice instruction because Reedy was not shown to have aided or intended the crimes | Reedy was an active participant in disposing of the truck and thus an accomplice; jury should have been instructed to view her testimony with caution | Refusal to instruct was proper: record did not permit an inference that Reedy knowingly and voluntarily aided the crimes; no prejudice shown |
| Remedy requested (new trial or release) | N/A | New trial or release due to errors identified above | Denied; conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (appellate standard for weight‑of‑the‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (limits on appellate review of credibility‑based weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion on requested jury charges)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 904 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 2006) (principles for reviewing jury charge refusals)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 560 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 1989) (definition and limits of accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Upshur, 410 A.2d 810 (Pa. 1980) (accomplice instruction required when evidence permits inference witness was accomplice)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 495 A.2d 543 (Pa. Super. 1985) (court may refuse accomplice charge if no evidence supports it)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 601 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1992) (accomplice instruction only when witness was active partner with intent)
- Commonwealth v. Tervalon, 345 A.2d 671 (Pa. 1975) (trial court not required to give instructions inapplicable to the facts)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 387 A.2d 820 (Pa. 1978) (defendant entitled to accomplice instruction if evidence raises jury question)