247 A.3d 1062
Pa.2021Background
- H.D. and her husband separated; a custody agreement awarded shared custody of their five-year-old child. H.D. repeatedly violated the agreement and in June 2016 absconded with the child to Florida for 47 days.
- H.D. claimed the father had abused the child, that governmental agencies would not help, and she took the child to preserve the child’s welfare; she was arrested and charged under 18 Pa.C.S. §2904(a) (interference with custody).
- Section 2904(b)(1) provides a statutory defense where the actor “believed that his action was necessary to preserve the child from danger to its welfare,” without any express reasonableness qualifier.
- At trial the court instructed the jury that the defendant’s belief had to be reasonable; the jury convicted H.D. She later obtained reinstated direct-appeal rights, and the Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the §2904(b)(1) defense is purely subjective.
- The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing the belief element should be limited to reasonable beliefs to avoid allowing objectively unreasonable parental kidnapping; H.D. and the Superior Court relied on the statute’s plain wording and Model Penal Code commentary to support a subjective-belief defense.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court: §2904(b)(1)’s unqualified term “believed” encompasses subjective (including unreasonable) beliefs; the Legislature omitted a reasonableness requirement and may do so if desired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2904(b)(1)’s belief element requires a reasonable belief | Commonwealth: statute should be read to require a reasonable belief to prevent absurd/unjust results and to effectuate the statute’s purpose of preventing parental kidnapping | H.D.: statute’s plain text uses unqualified “believed”; Model Penal Code commentary and suggested jury instructions reject a reasonableness requirement; belief is subjective | Court: Affirmed Superior Court — no reasonableness requirement; the unqualified word “believed” permits subjective (even unreasonable) beliefs; Legislature could add reasonableness if desired |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. H.D., 217 A.3d 880 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Superior Court holding §2904(b)(1) defense is subjective)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821 (Pa. 2014) (suggested jury instructions are nonbinding guides)
- Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416 (Pa. 2014) (court may consult Model Penal Code in statutory construction)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (principle of lenity applies to ambiguous penal statutes)