Commonwealth v. Nypaver
69 A.3d 708
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Myron P. Nypaver and wife Lisa were convicted by a jury of theft by deception and conspiracy arising from unemployment benefits claimed March–October 2010 while he was employed.
- Uniontown employee records showed Nypaver received unemployment benefits from March 6, 2010 to October 2, 2010; he allegedly was not unemployed during that period.
- Evidence showed Nypaver filed online bi-weekly claims using his PIN and used a debit card to access the benefits, with $16,990 withdrawn via cash and purchases.
- Nypaver allegedly admitted to his wife’s involvement and later told investigators that he was with her when the crimes occurred; his wife testified she acted alone.
- The trial court denied post-sentence motions; Nypaver appealed on multiple grounds including jurisdiction, evidentiary rulings, sufficiency, weight of the evidence, coercion to testify, and juror-related claims.
- The appellate court affirmed judgment of sentence, addressing jurisdiction, sufficiency, evidentiary admissibility, weight, and procedural/testimonial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under unemployment statute vs Crimes Code | Nypaver contends § 871(a) governs only summary proceedings and precludes Crimes Code prosecutions. | State argues § 9303 allows parallel prosecutions for the same conduct notwithstanding § 1933. | § 9303 controls; jurisdiction properly upheld and § 871(a) does not bar Crimes Code prosecution. |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts under Rule 404 | Appellant seeks to question wife about pending forgery/theft charges to impeach her credibility. | Erred to admit prior acts; evidence would breach 404(a)/(b) and prior acts were improperly opened. | Prior bad acts of the wife were not admissible; door opened inadequately and doctrines do not justify admission. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for theft and conspiracy | Credit wife’s involvement; conspiracy requires agreement, intent, and overt act; evidence supports. | Evidence shows his wife acted alone; he was not involved; insufficient to convict. | Evidence was sufficient to sustain both conspiracy and theft convictions given association, knowledge, and admission. |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury should credit wife’s lack of Appellant’s knowledge; evidence supported acquittal if trusted. | Verdict contrary to weight because wife acted independently. | No abuse of discretion; verdict not shockingly against the weight of the evidence. |
| Coercion or improper influence regarding testimony | Colloquy about testifying coerced Appellant to testify. | No objection made; waiver applies; colloquy did not coerce. | Appellant waived the claim; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garzone, 34 A.3d 67 (Pa. 2012) (statutory construction of § 871/9303 framework)
- Commonwealth v. Lussi, 757 A.2d 361 (Pa. 2000) (local statute preemption over Crimes Code where applicable)
- Commonwealth v. Bidner, 422 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 1980) (Election Code preemption of Crimes Code)
- Commonwealth v. Vukovich, 447 A.2d 267 (Pa. Super. 1982) (forgery/controlled substances under specialized acts)
- Commonwealth v. Estman, 915 A.2d 1191 (Pa. 2007) (§ 9303 applying ex post facto considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super. 2013) (sufficiency standard; circumstantial evidence permitted)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of conspiracy and collateral liability)
- Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 493 Pa. 96 (Pa. 1981) (extraneous juror information exception to no-impeachment rule)