Com. v. Wilson, A.
1045 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Appellant Atiba Wilson was charged with burglary of 7428 Palmer Street, Apartment 1, under 18 Pa.C.S. §3502(a)(2) and (c)(1): entering a dwelling adapted for overnight accommodation, when no person was present, with intent to commit a crime therein.
- At a non-jury proceeding, the prosecutor argued Wilson intended to commit the crime of flight to avoid apprehension when he entered the structure.
- Wilson fled from police after being seized at gunpoint following a report of two males brandishing a firearm; he ran and entered a building during the ensuing pursuit.
- The Majority vacated Wilson’s burglary conviction on the ground that he could not have intended to commit flight to avoid apprehension because that offense (as interpreted in Phillips) requires a formal charge or conviction and he had not yet been charged.
- Judge Bowes dissented in part: he agreed suppression challenge failed but would affirm the burglary conviction, viewing the information as alleging a generic intent to commit some crime (Alston), not the specific crime suggested by prosecutor remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary when prosecutor asserted intended crime was flight to avoid apprehension | Commonwealth relied on evidence of flight and entry and argued intent to commit flight supported burglary conviction | Wilson argued he could not intend to commit flight to avoid apprehension because Phillips bars that crime absent a prior charge; thus burglary intent lacking | Majority vacated burglary conviction because intended crime (flight) legally impossible under Phillips; concurrence would affirm based on generic intent to commit some crime |
| Proper scope of intent required for burglary conviction | Commonwealth need not allege a particular crime; general intent to commit any crime at time of entry suffices (per Alston) | Prosecutor’s trial argument specifying flight should not control; but Majority treated that specification as dispositive | Concurrence applies Alston: generic criminal intent can be inferred from circumstances; Majority focused on prosecutor’s specific assertion and Phillips constraint |
| Role of prosecutor’s remarks vs. charging document in sufficiency analysis | Commonwealth relied on trial/theory evidence and remarks | Wilson emphasized that prosecutor’s comments are not evidence and sufficiency must track the information and evidence | Concurrence stresses sufficiency is de novo and based on information/evidence, not prosecutor argument; Majority gave weight to prosecutor’s statement in vacating conviction |
| Whether escape/continuing detention theory supports burglary intent | Commonwealth could infer intent to escape/detain based on seizure and flight; escape is an ongoing offense | Wilson pointed to Phillips limiting flight offense when no prior charge; disputed that escape theory applies | Concurrence finds facts (seizure at gunpoint, orders to comply, running into structure) could support intent to commit escape and thus burglary under Alston |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Alston, 651 A.2d 1092 (Pa. 1994) (burglary requires intent to commit some crime; no need to allege or prove a specific crime)
- Commonwealth v. Phillips, 129 A.3d 513 (Pa. Super. 2016) (flight to avoid apprehension unavailable where defendant had not been charged)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 648 A.2d 797 (Pa. Super. 1994) ("official detention" can include a pre-arrest seizure; escape covers more than traditional prison escape)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (standard for sufficiency parallels Jackson reasonable-trier-of-fact inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2015) (sufficiency review requires viewing evidence and inferences in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d 97 (Pa. 1995) (prosecutor's comments are not evidence and should not substitute for factual proof)