Com. v. Siminick, G., 320 WDA 2016

Glenn W. Siminick was charged in two separate summary/misdemeanor prosecutions for defiant trespass at Buhl Park on Sept. 10, 2014 (416-2015) and Oct. 6, 2014 (415-2015).
At the morning (Oct. 6) trial the Commonwealth’s proffer that an ADA would testify that a judge had told Siminick not to be in the park was excluded as hearsay; other testimony failed to prove the statutory required method of notice and the court granted a judgment of acquittal on the Oct. 6 charge.
That afternoon the court tried the Sept. 10 matter; the Commonwealth produced testimony that Siminick had been told in June 2013 he was not permitted in the park, that trustees sent a letter banning him, and that park employees reported seeing him on Sept. 10.
The trial court denied Siminick’s motion for judgment of acquittal in the Sept. 10 case and found him guilty of defiant trespass (summary), concluding he knew he shouldn’t be in the park and that actual communication need not have come from the owner.
Siminick appealed, arguing (1) the Commonwealth was collaterally estopped from relitigating the notice issue after the acquittal on the Oct. 6 charge, and (2) the evidence was insufficient; the Court of Superior Court quashed an appeal as procedurally improper but addressed the merits on the timely appeal from sentence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel barred prosecution of the Sept. 10 trespass after acquittal on Oct. 6 charge	The acquittal on the Oct. 6 charge resolved the notice/communication issue in Siminick’s favor, so the Commonwealth cannot relitigate that issue	The two incidents are distinct; the acquittal only found Commonwealth failed to prove how notice was communicated as to Oct. 6 and did not resolve notice for Sept. 10	Court rejects collateral estoppel — prosecutions involve separate factual issues and prior acquittal did not definitively resolve notice for the other date
Whether evidence was insufficient to convict for Sept. 10 trespass	(Raised on appeal) Insufficient evidence that Siminick had actual notice as required by statute	Trial evidence showed prior oral notice (June 2013), trustee letter banning him, and park employees’ reports placing him in the park on Sept. 10; trial court credited this and convicted	Sufficiency claim waived on appeal for failure to preserve in Rule 1925(b); court affirms conviction

Commonwealth v. Holder, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002) (explains Pennsylvania collateral estoppel standards in criminal cases)
Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (discusses limits of collateral estoppel following acquittal)
Commonwealth v. Preacher, 827 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal-from-order vs. appeal-from-judgment procedure in criminal cases)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (preservation and waiver of issues on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to include issues in Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)