Com. v. Thompson, T., 2623 EDA 2018

May 20, 2017: in a Philadelphia rowhome, officers responded to a call of a person screaming and smelled a strong odor of gasoline upon entry.
Appellant Theodore Thompson and the complainant were smoking cigarettes and arguing; multiple people including minors were present in the house.
Thompson pushed the complainant, was handcuffed, and told police he had poured gasoline on the master bed to force the complainant to leave.
Officers and the fire marshal found a two-gallon gasoline can, numerous cigarette butts on a nightstand in the bedroom, and confirmed the liquid was gasoline by testing and briefly igniting it outdoors.
Thompson was charged with risking catastrophe (18 Pa.C.S. §3302(b)), possession of instruments of crime, and recklessly endangering another person; after a hearing denying suppression he waived a jury, was convicted at a bench trial, and sentenced to 18–36 months’ imprisonment plus 3 years’ probation.
On appeal Thompson argued (1) the Commonwealth failed to establish corpus delicti so his inculpatory statement should have been excluded, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove he created a risk of catastrophe.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for risking catastrophe	Pouring gasoline on a bed in a rowhome with people (including minors) present and active smokers created a substantial, unjustifiable risk — supports conviction	Squirting gasoline to make someone leave, without proof he intended to ignite it, is insufficient to show risk of catastrophe	Affirmed: evidence (gasoline on bed, gas can, cigarettes, occupants) permitted reasonable inference of reckless creation of risk of catastrophe
Admissibility of confession under corpus delicti rule	Circumstantial evidence (odor, gas can, gasoline test, cigarettes, presence of occupants) proved crime by a preponderance so Thompson’s admission was admissible	The Commonwealth failed to prove corpus delicti by a preponderance; confession should have been excluded	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — corpus delicti was shown and the confession was properly admitted

Commonwealth v. Izurieta, 171 A.3d 803 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. McCoy, 199 A.3d 411 (Pa. Super. 2018) (risking catastrophe involves reckless use of dangerous means that exposes society to extraordinary disaster)
Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (risking catastrophe may be found even if no catastrophe occurs)
Commonwealth v. Otterson, 947 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2008) (two-phase corpus delicti rule: preponderance for admissibility, beyond a reasonable doubt for factfinder’s use)
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2012) (corpus delicti defined as proof that a loss or injury occurred due to criminal conduct)