Commonwealth v. McCoy
199 A.3d 411
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Police responded to a disturbance at Appellant Aaron McCoy’s residence on Dec. 22, 2015; relatives of his deceased girlfriend reported McCoy was cultivating marijuana.
- Officers were shown a bedroom closet where 31 marijuana plants, a Sun Glo heat lamp, potting soil, fans, foil-wrapped cardboard, wiring/extension cords, and other combustibles were located; McCoy said it was a hobby and he did not sell it.
- McCoy was arrested; a search warrant was executed and items were seized and logged.
- McCoy waived jury trial, was convicted (bench) of risking a catastrophe (18 Pa.C.S. § 3302(b)), possession of marijuana, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705); sentence: three years’ probation on the risking-a-catastrophe count, no additional penalty on possession.
- On appeal McCoy challenged sufficiency of the evidence for risking a catastrophe and REAP; the Superior Court reversed those two convictions, affirmed the possession conviction, vacated the judgment of sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the possession count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (McCoy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to convict of risking a catastrophe (§3302(b)) | Expert testimony showed grow operation created an "extreme fire hazard" (heat lamp, wiring, combustibles) and neighboring structures were close enough to risk widespread damage | Evidence at most showed a local fire hazard inside McCoy’s otherwise unoccupied detached house; no proof of potential for widespread/extraordinary disaster or conscious disregard of such risk | Reversed—evidence insufficient: hazard ≠ risk of "catastrophe" (no showing of potential widespread injury/damage or recklessness under facts) |
| Sufficiency to convict of REAP (§2705) | Same evidence supported that McCoy’s conduct could place others in danger of death or serious bodily injury due to fire risk | No fire occurred; operation was monitored; dwelling largely unoccupied; McCoy did not consciously disregard a known risk of death/serious injury | Reversed—evidence insufficient: no proof another person was placed at risk of death/serious injury or that McCoy acted recklessly |
Key Cases Cited
- Simkins v. Commonwealth, 443 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 1982) (interprets scope of "catastrophe" under §3302 as requiring potential for widespread injury or damage)
- Hughes v. Commonwealth, 364 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1976) (defines catastrophe as synonymous with widespread injury/damage and frames mens rea requirement)
- Karetny v. Commonwealth, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (discusses requirement of extraordinary disaster risk for §3302)
- Salamone v. Commonwealth, 897 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. 2006) (actual avoidance of catastrophe does not negate culpability under §3302)
- Hoke v. Commonwealth, 928 A.2d 300 (Pa. Super. 2007) (meth lab explosion risk supported §3302 conviction)
- John v. Commonwealth, 596 A.2d 834 (Pa. Super. 1991) (intentional fire in attached building supporting §3302 where many people were exposed)
- Toritto v. Commonwealth, 67 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Walls v. Commonwealth, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (de novo review and plenary scope for sufficiency questions)
- Trinidad v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2014) (states sufficiency-of-evidence principles)
- Emler v. Commonwealth, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discusses appellate sufficiency review language)
- Goldhammer v. Commonwealth, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (mandates resentencing when appellate disposition alters trial court’s sentencing scheme)
- Hutchins v. Commonwealth, 42 A.3d 302 (Pa. Super. 2012) (poor judgment alone does not equal recklessness)
- McGinnis v. Commonwealth, 392 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1978) (fire in single, unoccupied residence not the widespread damage contemplated by §3302)