Com. v. Siminick, G.
320 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Glenn W. Siminick was charged in two separate summary/misdemeanor defiant trespass cases arising from alleged entries into Buhl Park on September 10, 2014 (416-2015) and October 6, 2014 (415-2015).
- Both matters were tried non-jury on January 25, 2016. The morning trial (Oct. 6 incident) resulted in the Commonwealth presenting witnesses but the court granted Siminick’s motion for acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to prove the statutorily required form of notice (actual communication) to him.
- That afternoon, the court heard evidence on the September 10 incident: park personnel testified they had informed Siminick in June 2013 he was not permitted in the park, security reports and a trustee letter banning him were produced, and a ranger reported seeing him on Sept. 10; Siminick denied being in the park.
- The court convicted Siminick of defiant trespass for the September 10 incident (graded as a summary offense) and later sentenced him to 90 days unsupervised probation plus costs; post-trial/post-sentence motions were denied and appeals followed.
- Siminick argued on appeal that (1) collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the notice/communication issue after the morning acquittal, and (2) the evidence was insufficient; the sufficiency claim was found waived for failing to raise it in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel barred prosecution of the Sept. 10 charge after an acquittal on Oct. 6 | Commonwealth: may retry; issues differ by date and facts | Siminick: prior acquittal on Oct. 6 resolved the notice element and precludes relitigation | Denied — acquittal on Oct. 6 failed to resolve actual-communication for Sept. 10; issues are separate in time and fact |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to convict for Sept. 10 | Commonwealth: presented testimony showing prior actual communication and reports supporting knowledge of ban | Siminick: challenges sufficiency of proof that he received statutorily required actual communication | Not addressed on merits — sufficiency claim waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Preacher, 827 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal from order denying post-trial motion is improper; direct appeal lies from judgment of sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Barger, 956 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for pure legal questions is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Holder, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002) (elements and requirements for collateral estoppel in criminal cases)
- Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (analysis of when prior acquittal precludes relitigation of issues)
- Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 445 A.2d 92 (Pa. 1981) (example where prior acquittal precluded relitigation of an issue essential to later charge)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 602 A.2d 345 (Pa. Super. 1992) (acquittal on one charge can bar prosecution on related charge if issue necessarily decided)
- Commonwealth v. Klinger, 398 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. 1979) (acquittal on one offense prevented subsequent prosecution on related perjury allegation)
- Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003) (acquittal that cannot be definitively read to resolve a specific element does not bar retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 540 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1988) (acquittal may have multiple bases and thus not collaterally estop related charges)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (issues not preserved in lower court are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to include issues in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)