Commonwealth v. Aikens, M., Aplt.
168 A.3d 137
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Markeith Aikens was tried for unlawful contact with a minor (18 Pa.C.S. § 6318) and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (IDSI, a Chapter 31 first‑degree felony); jury acquitted him of IDSI but convicted him of unlawful contact and corruption of minors.
- Section 6318(b) provides that unlawful contact is graded the same as the most serious underlying offense for which the defendant contacted the minor, or a third‑degree felony, whichever is greater.
- At trial the court instructed the jury that unlawful contact could be found only if the contact was "for the purpose of engaging in an unlawful act — and in this case, that unlawful act is alleged to be [IDSI]."
- Aikens argued pre‑ and post‑sentence that, because he was acquitted of IDSI, his unlawful contact conviction must be graded under the default third‑degree felony provision (relying on Commonwealth v. Reed).
- Trial court and Superior Court rejected Aikens’s challenge, concluding the jury necessarily found the purpose of contact was IDSI based on the instruction and verdict; the trial court sentenced him to 6–12 years (unlawful contact, graded F‑1) + 1–3 years (corruption of minors).
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: because the jury was instructed that IDSI was the specific purpose element and convicted on unlawful contact, the conviction could be graded as a first‑degree felony under § 6318(b)(1) despite the acquittal on IDSI.
Issues
| Issue | Aikens' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unlawful contact must be graded as F‑3 when jury acquitted of the underlying Chapter 31 offense | Aikens: Acquittal of IDSI carries special weight under Reed; sentencing court would be forced to guess purpose, so default F‑3 applies | Commonwealth: Reed is distinguishable; jury instruction made IDSI the sole alleged purpose so jury necessarily found that purpose and F‑1 grading applies | Held: Reed distinguished — because jury was instructed IDSI was the specific alleged purpose and convicted on unlawful contact, grading as F‑1 was proper under § 6318(b)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 9 A.3d 1138 (Pa. 2010) (acquittals on charged underlying offenses require applying § 6318 default grading when jury did not determine which underlying offense was intended)
- Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005) (an acquittal on a charged predicate offense has special weight when that predicate is an element of another charged offense)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing the statutory maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)