Commonwealth v. Moran, Aplt
104 A.3d 1136
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Fred Moran, a Haverford Township commissioner, was liaison for sale of township property; he and another commissioner negotiated with developer Goldenberg-Pohlig (GP).
- In Nov. 2005 GP agreed to pay $17 million for 38 acres; Moran proposed GP pre-pay $500,000 of 2006 realty taxes in exchange for accelerated zoning approvals.
- Moran told GP principal Michael Lawry: “call it extortion... We need $500,000, and we’ll accelerate the zoning. We’ll get you the zoning approvals you need.” GP declined to act on the request; sale finalized much later.
- Moran was charged and convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4701 (bribery in official and political matters); he challenged sufficiency of evidence and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the Crimes Code default mens rea (§ 302(c)).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held § 4701 is not a strict liability offense, § 302(c) supplies the applicable mens rea (intentional/knowing/reckless), Moran’s conduct fell within § 4701 because soliciting $500,000 to get expedited zoning constituted soliciting a "benefit" for an entity in whose welfare he was interested (the township), and the trial court’s failure to instruct on § 302(c) was harmless error on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Moran’s Argument | Commonwealth’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 4701 requires a corrupt motive or personal benefit | Moran: conviction required corrupt motive or personal pecuniary benefit; he sought money for the township only | Commonwealth: statute’s plain text and § 4501 define “benefit” broadly; personal receipt is not required; corrupt motive is not an element | Held: No corrupt-motive or personal-benefit requirement; a benefit to an entity in whose welfare the official is interested (here, the township) falls within § 4701 |
| Whether § 4701 is a strict-liability offense or requires mens rea and, if so, which mens rea | Moran: § 4701 is not strict liability; jury should be instructed under § 302(c) (intentional/knowing/reckless) | Commonwealth (alternative positions): argue legislature abandoned corrupt intent language and may have intended no mens rea; also argued omission harmless | Held: § 4701 is not strict liability; default culpability under 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(c) applies (must prove at least recklessness), so jury should have been instructed accordingly |
| Whether failure to instruct jury on § 302(c) was reversible error | Moran: omission was critical because state of mind was central and jury twice requested the bribery definition | Commonwealth: any omission was harmless because trial court’s charge effectively required intentional conduct and evidence of intent was overwhelming | Held: The trial court erred by not instructing on § 302(c), but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the charge and overwhelming evidence of intentional solicitation |
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain bribery conviction | Moran: lacked criminal intent and personal benefit; request to benefit township was legitimate governmental act | Commonwealth: Moran linked expedited zoning to $500,000; township is an entity in whose welfare Moran was interested; his statement suggesting “extortion” shows culpable awareness | Held: Evidence was sufficient; jury reasonably found Moran solicited a benefit (to the township) in exchange for official action, conduct § 4701 intended to prohibit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Parmar, 551 Pa. 318, 710 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 1998) (Super. Ct. held § 302(c) supplies mens rea for § 4701; affirmed by operation of an evenly divided court)
- Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 592 Pa. 262, 924 A.2d 636 (Pa. 2007) (absence of express mens rea does not necessarily indicate strict liability; § 302 governs default culpability)
- Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 583 Pa. 6, 874 A.2d 623 (Pa. 2005) (discusses when § 302(c) supplies mens rea and when statutory wording implies a different mental state)
- Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 574 Pa. 460, 832 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2003) (strict liability offenses are disfavored; legislature must clearly indicate intent to dispense with mens rea)
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 474 Pa. 308, 378 A.2d 807 (Pa. 1977) (refusal to instruct jury on required intent is error)
- Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 397 Pa. 575, 155 A.2d 825 (Pa. 1959) (recognizes that public-welfare offenses may be strict liability, but such offenses are narrow and penalties typically light)
- Commonwealth v. Bullock, 590 Pa. 480, 913 A.2d 207 (Pa. 2006) (applying harmless-error standard in criminal context)