Com. v. Steele, C.
234 A.3d 840
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- On March 27, 2018, Christopher Allen Steele chased a red Nissan Sentra after a drug sale went awry, fired repeatedly at the Sentra from his truck, and several blocks later rammed the Sentra, causing collisions with other parked vehicles.
- Steele’s passenger, Lydia Vicario, testified that Steele pursued and shot at the Sentra; she did not corroborate Steele’s later claim of being chased by a separate minivan or that he shot in self-defense.
- Police stopped Steele about 45 minutes after the crash, recovered an iPhone running a police scanner app, and found a .22 caliber handgun (warm barrel, empty magazine), shell casings, gunshot residue on Steele, and baggies of marijuana in the truck; no weapons or gunshot residue were found on Sentra occupants.
- Steele testified that he had been robbed and shot at the Sentra to escape a separate chase and asserted self-defense; he also had a license to carry a firearm.
- A jury convicted Steele of two counts of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1),(a)(4)), two counts of reckless endangerment, possession of an instrument of a crime, criminal use of a communication facility (18 Pa.C.S. § 7512), and other offenses; the court imposed consecutive terms including a sentence for criminal use of a communication facility.
- The Superior Court affirmed all convictions except criminal use of a communication facility, reversing that conviction because the Commonwealth failed to prove the statute’s required ‘‘felony element,’’ and remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Steele's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (§ 2702(a)(1),(a)(4)) and reckless endangerment (§ 2705) | Chase, repeated shooting, and ramming show attempt to cause serious bodily injury and reckless conduct placing others in danger | Shot in self-defense to escape after being robbed and chased; no intent to injure | Guilty upheld — evidence sufficient; self-defense disproved (Vicario’s testimony credited) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of an instrument of crime (§ 907(b)) | Possession of firearm with intent shown by using it to shoot at Sentra occupants | Licensed to carry and claimed defensive use; no criminal intent | Guilty upheld — firearm use during attack supports criminal intent |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal use of a communication facility (§ 7512) | Using police scanner to evade police facilitated commission/attempt of felonies (evading police) | Scanner used after crash to avoid detection; no evidence it facilitated a felony | Guilty reversed — Commonwealth failed to prove scanner use caused or facilitated the commission or attempt of any felony (felony element unmet) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Diamond, 83 A.3d 119 (Pa. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2001) (firing a gun at a person can establish attempt for aggravated assault)
- Commonwealth v. Scales, 648 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 1994) (vehicle can be a deadly weapon when used in a manner likely to produce death or serious injury)
- Commonwealth v. Battiato, 619 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 1993) (upholding aggravated-assault conviction where vehicle use caused injury)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (elements and burden regarding self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2009) (examples of conduct sufficient for reckless endangerment)
- Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (when one sentence in a multi-count case is erroneous, remand for resentencing and restructuring of the entire sentencing scheme)