Com. v. Wakefield, M.
Com. v. Wakefield, M. No. 68 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 4, 2017Background
- On Sept. 8, 2013, Marquise Wakefield approached Alexandra Houlihan, borrowed her cellphone, then threatened her with a handgun (an unloaded BB gun) when she demanded it back; he followed her into her bedroom, blocked the exit, threatened sexual assault, touched her arm, then fled with money when a roommate approached, leaving the phone behind.
- Less than 30 minutes later at a nearby bus stop Wakefield threatened Marcell Bellinger and Rebecca Hale with the same gun, pointing it at Bellinger’s face and demanding money and a phone; after a brief standoff Wakefield left without taking property.
- Police arrested Wakefield nearby and recovered a black, unloaded BB gun; victims positively identified him. He was charged across three dockets with numerous offenses and convicted after a bench trial.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 10–20 year sentence. Wakefield appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence for unlawful restraint (Houlihan), REAP (Bellinger/Hale), and theft/receiving stolen property (Bellinger).
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and evaluated whether the evidence showed an actual present ability to cause serious bodily injury where required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wakefield) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for unlawful restraint (18 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a)(1)) as to Houlihan | Evidence of threatening with a gun and barricading the exit exposed victim to risk of serious bodily injury | BB gun was unloaded; no actual risk of serious bodily injury — only apparent danger | Reversed: conviction vacated — insufficient evidence of actual risk under § 2902(a)(1) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for recklessly endangering another person (REAP) as to Bellinger & Hale | Pointing gun at Bellinger in public created immediate, foreseeable risk (including risk of third‑party retaliation/crossfire) | Unloaded BB gun and street setting made retaliation risk speculative; distinguishable from indoor/bar fights | Affirmed: sufficient evidence to support REAP convictions |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft and receiving stolen property as to Bellinger | Demand for money/phone coupled with gun supported convictions | Wakefield fled without taking property; no evidence he obtained possession | Reversed: convictions for theft and receiving stolen property vacated — insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Schilling, 431 A.2d 1088 (Pa. Super. 1981) (air/BB pistol that was not shown to be loaded may not create actual danger required for unlawful restraint under § 2902(a)(1))
- Commonwealth v. Trowbridge, 395 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. 1978) (apparent ability to harm is insufficient for REAP/REAP‑type offenses; actual ability or inherently dangerous circumstances required)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 572 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 1990) (use of an unloaded but dangerous‑appearing weapon in inherently dangerous circumstances can support unlawful restraint)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (brandishing a gun in a public, tumultuous confrontation created a foreseeable, actual risk supporting REAP even if gun’s operability was not proved)
- Commonwealth v. Cianci, 130 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2015) (REAP requires proof that defendant’s conduct placed or may have placed another in danger of death or serious bodily injury)
- Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. 2014) (REAP focuses on defendant’s conduct creating the danger, not mere apprehension)
- Commonwealth v. Lohr, 468 A.2d 1375 (Pa. 1983) (where conduct supports alternative offense, variance between charged and convicted offense may not be prejudicial)