Commonwealth v. Predmore, 199 A.3d 925

In December 2015 Steven Predmore shot Alexander Marsicano three times (two wounds to the calves) after a confrontation; Predmore said he acted in self-defense and wanted to stop a beating.
Commonwealth charged Predmore with attempted criminal homicide (first‑degree attempted murder), aggravated assault, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.
Predmore filed a pretrial habeas petition arguing the Commonwealth failed to present prima facie evidence of specific intent to kill; the trial court granted the habeas petition and dismissed the attempted‑murder count.
Commonwealth appealed, arguing the evidence that Predmore retrieved a gun, loaded it, aimed and fired at the retreating victim from close range established prima facie specific intent to kill.
The Superior Court reviewed de novo whether the Commonwealth’s prima facie evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth) supported the mens rea element of attempted murder.
The Court affirmed: although Predmore took a substantial step (actus reus), the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence of specific intent to kill given the wounds (calves), absence of verbal statements, motive, or other aggravating circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commonwealth presented prima facie evidence of specific intent to kill for attempted murder	Commonwealth: retrieving, loading, aiming, and firing three shots at a retreating victim from close range supports an inference of intent to kill	Predmore: evidence shows a substantial step but not specific intent to kill; shots struck nonvital lower legs and there was no verbal or circumstantial evidence of an intent to kill	Held: No. Evidence established a substantial step but did not reasonably support an inference of specific intent to kill; habeas dismissal affirmed
Whether proof of a substantial step alone suffices for attempted murder prima facie case	Commonwealth: actions constituting a substantial step demonstrate attempted murder	Predmore: substantial step is necessary but insufficient without specific intent proof	Held: A substantial step proves actus reus but cannot substitute for proof of mens rea; both elements required prima facie

Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (attempted murder requires specific intent to kill and a substantial step)
Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (prima facie sufficiency at habeas is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
Commonwealth v. Carroll, 936 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element at habeas; suspicion/conjecture insufficient)
Commonwealth v. Uderra, 706 A.2d 334 (Pa. 1998) (specific intent to kill may be inferred from use of a deadly weapon on a vital part)
Commonwealth v. Padgett, 348 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1975) (firing a bullet in the general area of vital organs can support inference of intent to kill)
Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (multiple wounds to vital areas and post‑arrest statements supported intent to kill)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 392 A.2d 1366 (Pa. 1978) (totality of circumstances, including wounds near vital area and other facts, can support intent to kill)