Commonwealth v. Donohue
62 A.3d 1033
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Patrick Donohue was adjudged guilty at a nonjury trial of burglary, theft, trespass, criminal mischief, and receiving stolen property.
- The burglary involved a private residence on 3656 Academy Road, Philadelphia, left locked with a door secured and a firm belief that it was secure.
- A Pepsi bottle found in the basement bore fingerprints later identified as Donohue’s, with other prints not matching.
- The burglary occurred overnight; the bottle was unopened at 6:00 p.m. and found opened and partially consumed the next morning.
- Officer Merry recovered nine usable fingerprints, and expert analysis linked two imprints on the bottle to Donohue.
- Guideline calculations and prior record factors contributed to a sentence of two to four years despite a guideline range of roughly thirty-five to forty-five months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient to convict on burglary based on fingerprint proof alone? | Donohue argues fingerprints alone are insufficient. | Donohue asserts there is no innocent explanation for the prints on the bottle. | Yes; fingerprints on a movable object with no innocent explanation sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749 (Pa.Super.2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; may rely on circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa.Super.2011) (en banc considerations in sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Cichy, 323 A.2d 817 (Pa.Super.1974) (fingerprints alone may convict if no innocent explanation)
- In re M.J.H., 988 A.2d 694 (Pa.Super.2010) (innocent explanations for fingerprints on accessible objects may negate guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Henry, 875 A.2d 302 (Pa.Super.2005) (fingerprints on movable object inside vehicle insufficient without more)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 420 A.2d 527 (Pa.Super.1980) (fingerprints on near-point-of-entry item sustaining burglary conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 392 A.2d 769 (Pa.Super.1978) (presence by fingerprints on interior items can sustain burglary conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Marrero, 914 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super.2006) (fingerprints on interior hood of stolen car; location not susceptible to innocent contact)
- Commonwealth v. Hunter, 338 A.2d 623 (Pa.Super.1975) (fingerprints at point of entry supported burglary conviction)