Com. v. Wolfe, P.
211 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Wolfe leased a Toyota forklift from PennWest in October 2011; rent/lease agreement listed delivery address in Somerset, PA; machine valued at ~$65,000.
- Payments stopped after August 2012; PennWest made repeated unsuccessful phone/email attempts to contact Wolfe and attempted recovery through a contracted driver.
- Wolfe continued to use the forklift for jobs (moved it out of state to Maine and elsewhere) from Aug 2012 until recovery in March 2014; repair records showed an additional 957 hours of use.
- PennWest had the forklift flagged as stolen and located it after a service call to a Toyota parts/field service was generated; PSP recovered the machine.
- Wolfe was convicted after a bench trial of theft of leased property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3932), sentenced to 16 months–7 years and ordered to pay restitution; he appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Wolfe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence proved Wolfe intentionally dealt with leased property as his own | Evidence Wolfe ceased payments, evaded contact, continued using and moving the forklift, and only relinquished possession when recovered—supports conversion to his own use | Insufficient: no proof Wolfe sold, secreted, destroyed or otherwise disposed of property; Commonwealth failed to show written notice required for statutory presumption of intent | Affirmed: evidence (including prolonged use, relocation, evasion of contact, hours of use) was sufficient to prove conversion and intent; written notice is not an element but only creates a presumption |
| Weight of the evidence: whether verdict shocks the conscience | Trial court found Commonwealth witnesses credible and evidence of evasion/use weighty | Wolfe: matter better suited to civil recovery; trial testimony showed he sought repairs and directed foreman to call PennWest, undermining intent | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against weight—court credited Commonwealth and found Wolfe not credible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 141 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Tarrach, 42 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sufficiency principles; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Lebron, 765 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2000) (addressing proof required under § 3932; reversing where intent/secreting not shown)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for judgment of acquittal challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency review framework)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 38 A.3d 846 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency principles cited)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight-of-evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (trial judge’s role in weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Whitney, 512 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 1986) (new-trial standard where verdict shocks conscience)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177 (Pa. 1994) (appellate review of weight claims)