Commonwealth v. Cahill
95 A.3d 298
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 2, 2012, SEPTA officer observed John Cahill attempting to sell SEPTA tokens at a station; officer detained him after he refused to leave and provide ID.
- Cahill was cited for unauthorized sale/transfer of tickets (18 Pa.C.S. § 6910(b)) and for carrying an open container; convicted in municipal court and appealed.
- At the de novo trial, Officer Perrone testified and acknowledged that Cahill was selling tokens, not paper tickets.
- Trial court convicted Cahill under § 6910(b) (unauthorized sale of tickets) and imposed a fine; Cahill appealed, raising suppression, sufficiency, and sentencing issues.
- The appellate court addressed only the sufficiency issue: whether a “token” falls within the statutory term “ticket” in § 6910(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6910(b) (unauthorized sale of "tickets") | Cahill: evidence insufficient because he was selling tokens, not tickets | Commonwealth: statute should encompass tokens as forms of proof of fare/payment | Court: "ticket" is unambiguous and does not include tokens; evidence insufficient; conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012) (courts may not add matters legislature omitted)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 962 A.2d 1160 (Pa. 2009) (rule of lenity and strict construction of penal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852 (Pa. Super. 2010) (cited for evidentiary/legal standards)