Commonwealth v. Batty
169 A.3d 70
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jordan Anthony Batty was convicted by a jury of receiving stolen property, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm prohibited (18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3925, 6106, 6105) on Sept. 11, 2015.
- At the original sentencing (Oct. 29, 2015) the trial court suggested ineffective assistance/jury instruction issues and accepted an oral PCRA-like motion, awarding a new trial; this Court vacated that disposition and remanded for resentencing.
- On remand the court sentenced Batty on Oct. 27, 2016 to an aggregate 8.5 to 17 years and permitted counsel to file a post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc, which Batty filed on Nov. 23, 2016.
- The trial court (different judge than at trial) granted Batty’s post-sentence motion on Jan. 10, 2017, ordering a new trial based on (1) an alleged erroneous jury instruction that omitted operability as an element of § 6105 and (2) an assertion that the charge effectively directed a verdict for the Commonwealth.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reviewed the jury charge as a whole and reversed the order granting a new trial, reinstating the Oct. 27, 2016 judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Batty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether operability of the firearm is an element of § 6105 and trial court erred by telling jury operability need not be proven | § 6105 requires proof only that the item is a "firearm" as statutorily defined; trial charge was correct that operability is not required | Layton and earlier cases require operability proof; jury should have been instructed operability is an element | Trial court did not err: under the current § 6105 definition operability is not required; the charge correctly defined "firearm" and possession elements (relying on Thomas). |
| Whether the jury charge directed a verdict/usurped the jury by saying elements "are proven beyond a reasonable doubt" | The charge read as a whole repeatedly assigned burden to Commonwealth and reserved fact-finding to jury; an isolated phrasing did not compel guilt or direct verdict | The phrasing "they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt" impermissibly told the jury the elements were established and thus deprived Batty of jury determination | Held for Commonwealth: viewing the instruction in context, the charge did not direct a verdict or usurp the jury; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009) (§ 6105 conviction requires possession and prohibited status; statutory definition of "firearm" removes operability requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Layton, 307 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1973) (pre-§ 6105 statutory framework that required operability is not controlling under current statute)
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759 (Pa. Super. 2006) (upheld conviction where weapon demonstrated operability; did not alter statutory interpretation under § 6105)
- Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017) (reiterates elements required for § 6105 convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Gearhart, 384 A.2d 1321 (Pa. Super. 1978) (directed verdict of guilt principles; jury presumption of innocence and burden of proof)