Commonwealth v. Cannavo
199 A.3d 1282
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- On Halloween 2015, Appellant James Cannavo fired a .40 caliber handgun through the locked door of a carriage house after a noisy group of students (including the victim) banged on the door; the bullet struck the victim in the abdomen.
- Cannavo had a CCTV system that allowed him to see outside the door; he testified he believed the group was attempting to break in and that he feared for his safety.
- Police later discovered Cannavo was a person prohibited from possessing a firearm; he was charged with attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, simple assault, and possession by a person not to possess a firearm.
- At trial Cannavo asserted self-defense and requested a jury instruction invoking the castle doctrine presumption; the trial court denied that instruction and the jury convicted him of the offenses; a bench trial convicted him on the weapons count.
- Trial court sentenced Cannavo to an aggregate 25–50 years. He appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in refusing the castle-doctrine instruction and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain attempted murder.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a jury instruction applying the castle-doctrine presumption (18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2.1)) | Cannavo argued the presumption should have been given because he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary when the group banged on his door; the court’s legal determination infringed the jury’s factfinding and due process | Trial court held no evidence showed the victim was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering the dwelling (§505(b)(2.1)(i)); alternatively Cannavo was engaged in criminal activity (illegal gun possession) under §505(b)(2.2)(iii), so the presumption did not apply | Affirmed: trial court properly determined as a matter of law there was insufficient evidence to trigger the castle presumption; alternatively criminal-activity exception applied |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support attempted first-degree murder conviction | Cannavo argued the jury lacked proper instruction on malice and his unreasonable belief in the need for deadly force negated malice (and thus intent) | Commonwealth argued malice is not an element of attempted murder; evidence (firing a gun at abdominal height toward a group) permits an inference of intent to kill | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for attempted first-degree murder (substantial step and specific intent may be inferred from use of deadly weapon aimed at a vital part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for jury instruction challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Childs, 143 A.3d 823 (Pa. 2016) (castle-doctrine presumption is evidentiary/procedural and does not alter elements of self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 595 A.2d 575 (Pa. 1991) (trial judge decides whether evidence justifies a self-defense instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2009) (premeditation can be formed in a very brief period)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 57 A.3d 1185 (Pa. 2012) (use of a deadly weapon on a vital part supports inference of intent to kill)