Commonwealth, Aplt v. Gross, E.
101 A.3d 28
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Emily Gross and Daniel Autenrieth began a relationship; Autenrieth’s estranged wife obtained a temporary and then final PFA in Northampton County prohibiting him from firearm possession.
- Gross, a New Jersey resident who stayed overnight at Autenrieth’s Northampton home, obtained a PA driver’s license using his address and purchased a 9mm handgun in Berks County on May 29, 2009.
- Gross left the gun at Autenrieth’s residence; Autenrieth later took the gun, used it, and on June 7, 2009 committed crimes culminating in a shoot-out in Monroe County where he killed a trooper and was killed.
- Commonwealth charged Gross in Monroe County with conspiracy and accomplice-based firearm offenses tied to Autenrieth’s illegal possession.
- Trial court dismissed for improper venue (concluding conspiracy completed in Northampton and no overt act occurred in Monroe); Superior Court affirmed. Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Gross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in Monroe County was proper for conspiracy and accomplice-based firearm charges | Venue proper because co-conspirator Autenrieth committed an overt act (possession/use) in Monroe County, making Gross vicariously liable there | Venue improper because the conspiracy was reached and completed in Northampton and Gross committed no acts in Monroe County | Venue proper in Monroe County; trial court erred in dismissing charges |
| Who bears burden to prove venue and standard of proof | (Implicit) Commonwealth must establish venue | Gross: raised venue challenge | Commonwealth bears burden to prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence once defendant properly raises issue; upheld here |
| Whether dismissal is proper remedy for improper venue | Commonwealth: if venue improper, court should transfer rather than dismiss | Gross sought dismissal (and alternatively transfer) | Dismissal inappropriate; rules favor transfer to proper district; dismissal was error |
| Whether accomplice liability extends to possession occurring in Monroe County | Commonwealth: Gross aided/authorized possession, so accomplice liability follows wherever Autenrieth possessed gun | Gross: she did not possess or commit acts in Monroe and did not intend the later crimes | Accomplice liability applies; Gross could be tried in Monroe because she aided illegal possession and conspiracy continued while Autenrieth had access to the gun |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2003) (distinguishes jurisdiction and venue; venue belongs where crime occurred)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (elements of conspiracy include overt act)
- Commonwealth v. Weimer, 977 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2009) (definition of overt act and conspiracy discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (conspiracy prosecution may be brought where agreement formed or overt act occurred)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 189 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1963) (venue for conspiracy where overt act committed)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 413 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1980) (conspiracy duration depends on scope of agreement)
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may establish matters including venue)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 686 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1996) (standard for accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 387 A.2d 1268 (Pa. 1978) (intent to aid essential for aiding and abetting)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 263 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1970) (non-substantial assistance can establish complicity)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (presence at scene not dispositive of accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Zook, 615 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1992) (dismissal for procedural defects requires showing of prejudice)