Com. v. Thomas, K.
Com. v. Thomas, K. No. 2618 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- On Nov. 29, 2012 Jamison Towing employee Michael Yarnell hooked two vehicles (a Ford Expedition and a Chevy van) onto his tow truck and stopped near the 40th Street Bridge to take required photographs and activate towing lights.
- Appellants Kevyn Thomas and co-defendant Rafphique Gerald arrived in a Buick, confronted Yarnell about the Expedition, and became aggressive; Thomas allegedly placed Yarnell in a chokehold while Gerald dragged him by the groin and kicked him as they moved him toward the bridge edge.
- An off-duty University of Pennsylvania police officer arrived, drew his weapon, and ordered the defendants to stop; Yarnell sustained injuries (chest/back contusions, neck issues) and missed work.
- Defendants were tried non-jury and convicted of multiple offenses including aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)) and conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903); Thomas was sentenced to 11½ to 23 months’ imprisonment plus probation.
- On appeal Thomas argued the Commonwealth failed to disprove his claim of (imperfect) defense of property and that a reasonable mistake of fact (believing his car was stolen) negated the requisite intent; he also raised a weight-of-the-evidence claim.
- The trial court rejected the defense-of-property claim (force was not immediately necessary, was not in fresh pursuit, and defendants were initial aggressors), and the Superior Court affirmed; the weight claim was held waived for not being preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency re: aggravated assault malice/intent | Commonwealth: evidence and inferences support malice and aggravated assault given chokehold, dragging, kicking, threats and continuation until officer intervention | Thomas: his (imperfect) defense of property / reasonable mistake that vehicle was stolen negated malice/intent | Court: Affirmed conviction — defense of property inapplicable (not immediate/fresh pursuit, initial aggressors, opportunity to produce paperwork), evidence showed malice |
| Sufficiency re: other offenses (simple assault, REAP, theft, RSP, conspiracy, terroristic threats) | Commonwealth: coordinated violent assault, threats, and removal of Yarnell’s camera support convictions | Thomas: same justification/ mistake-of-fact defense negates criminal intent for these offenses | Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient; defense-of-property rejected for same reasons |
| Whether mistake of fact shifted burden to Commonwealth to disprove reasonableness | Commonwealth: once defendant asserts justification, prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt with the record evidence | Thomas: his mistaken but reasonable belief that car was stolen required Commonwealth to disprove the reasonableness of that belief | Held: Court concluded record did not support a reasonable mistake (testimony was self-serving, timing not fresh pursuit, paperwork present) and therefore Commonwealth properly sustained its burden |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: verdicts supported by credible, consistent testimony and physical evidence | Thomas: verdicts against weight given his character evidence and alleged lesser conduct | Held: Claim waived for failure to preserve in trial court; in any event trial court’s credibility determinations not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55 (Pa. 2014) (standards for de novo sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. O'Hanlon, 653 A.2d 616 (Pa. 1995) (aggravated assault requires recklessness equivalent to seeking to cause injury)
- Commonwealth v. McHale, 858 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2004) (malice as mens rea for aggravated assault)
- Commonwealth v. Kling, 731 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1999) (comparison of malice standards)
- Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006) (application of defense-of-property requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (standard and preservation for weight-of-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (weight claim must be preserved before sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Lofton, 57 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2012) (preservation rules for weight claims)