Commonwealth v. Doughty, J., Aplt., 126 A.3d 951

Appellant assaulted his wife on June 30, 2012; she reported to police and charges were filed. While jailed, appellant called and used a three-way call (through his father) to urge her to recant, offering to pay fines and invoking threats to his livelihood and their marriage.
Two days after the call the spouse declined to press charges; appellant was charged with intimidation of a witness under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952, along with related offenses.
The jury convicted appellant of intimidation of a witness and simple assault; he received an aggregate sentence of 33 to 66 months.
Appellant challenged sufficiency of the evidence for intimidation and asked this Court to overrule or clarify Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989), which had held that offers of benefit could satisfy § 4952(a) under certain circumstances.
The Commonwealth argued Brachbill simply recognizes that intimidation need not be overtly threatening and that an offer of benefit can be intimidating under the totality of circumstances.
The Supreme Court clarified Brachbill: awarding that a pecuniary inducement alone does not automatically satisfy the § 4952(a) element of intimidation, but an inducement may amount to intimidation under the totality of circumstances; the Court affirmed the conviction on sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Brachbill should be overruled/clarified because it allows conviction based solely on offers of benefit without proving intimidation	Brachbill read intimidation out of § 4952(a), treating inducement in (b) as a substitute for the statutory element of intimidation; penal statutes must be strictly construed	Brachbill properly recognizes that intimidation need not be overt threats and that an offer of benefit can be a form of intimidation under the totality of circumstances	Court clarified Brachbill: disapproved the notion that inducement alone suffices; intimidation remains an element to be proved, but inducement may be evidence of intimidation assessed by the factfinder under the totality of circumstances
Sufficiency of evidence that appellant intimidated or attempted to intimidate his wife	Wife testified she was not intimidated; appellant argued Commonwealth failed to prove intimidation or attempt to intimidate	Commonwealth pointed to the prison recording, appellant’s abusive history, and the pecuniary offer as contextual indicia of intimidation	Court held evidence, viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, was sufficient for the jury to find attempted intimidation; conviction affirmed

Commonwealth v. Brachbill, 520 Pa. 533, 555 A.2d 82 (1989) (held offers of benefit may be proscribed under § 4952 but treated grading provision as informing substantive scope)
Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (applied Brachbill to find an offer of financial benefit could satisfy § 4952 under surrounding circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 619 Pa. 549, 65 A.3d 339 (2013) (explained when remand for further factfinding is unnecessary on sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Mattison, 623 Pa. 174, 82 A.3d 386 (2013) (sets standard for sufficiency review: view evidence and reasonable inferences in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 557 Pa. 453, 734 A.2d 840 (1999) (discusses when judicial statutory interpretation becomes part of the legislation and implications for revisiting precedent)
Shambach v. Bickhart, 577 Pa. 384, 845 A.2d 793 (2004) (noting special force of stare decisis in statutory construction but permitting reconsideration in appropriate cases)
Kendrick v. Dist. Attorney of Phila., 591 Pa. 157, 916 A.2d 529 (2007) (addresses stare decisis and separation-of-powers concerns when overruling statutory precedent)