Com. v. Walker, A.
3218 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 4, 2016Background
- On Nov. 30, 2013 police responded to a burglary report at the closed Bartram High School Annex and found a broken entry door and tampering.
- Officers earlier observed two men near the school matching the radio flash description enter a black Chevrolet pickup.
- When officers approached, the pickup fled; after a high-speed chase it crashed into a utility pole.
- Officers saw tools, copper pipes, and a sink in the truck bed; the facility coordinator identified them as similar to items removed from the Annex.
- The passenger (Walker) fled the crash, hid in a backyard shed, resisted arrest, and was later captured; the driver (Thornton) was arrested at the crash.
- At a non-jury trial Walker was convicted of Theft by Unlawful Taking (18 Pa.C.S. § 3921) and Criminal Conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903); sentenced to 3 years’ probation and restitution. Walker appealed arguing insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft conviction | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (recent possession of stolen items, flight, presence near crime scene, items in truck) supports finding Walker exercised unlawful control / intent to deprive | Walker: no one saw him carry items; evidence is purely circumstantial and does not show possession, knowledge, or intent | Guilty verdict affirmed — circumstantial evidence (possession of recently stolen goods, flight, proximity and conduct) sufficient to infer guilty knowledge and unlawful control |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Commonwealth: agreement and overt acts may be inferred from joint presence at scene, joint flight, conduct and circumstances forming a ‘‘web of evidence’’ | Walker: no direct proof of an agreement to steal; no explicit agreement shown | Guilty verdict supported — agreement can be inferred from conduct, relation, and overt acts; joint flight and coordinated conduct suffice to prove conspiracy element |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency claims; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 38 A.3d 846 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Commonwealth may meet burden with wholly circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Mobley, 14 A.3d 887 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same principle on circumstantial proof)
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 101 A.3d 28 (Pa. 2014) (elements of conspiracy: intent, agreement, overt act)
- Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2005) (circumstances and conduct can create a web of evidence to infer conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 2006) (agreement for conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances; overt act need not be by defendant)
- Commonwealth v. King, 990 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. 2010) (each co-conspirator liable for actions of others in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Grabowski, 549 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1988) (permissible inference of guilty knowledge from unexplained possession of recently stolen goods)
- Commonwealth v. Rizzuto, 777 A.2d 1069 (Pa. 2001) (flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Plath, 405 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 1979) (possession of recently stolen property + evasive conduct can sustain theft conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Hanes, 522 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1987) (same: evidence sufficient where defendant found with items stolen same day)