Commonwealth v. Reed
607 Pa. 629
| Pa. | 2010Background
- Detective operated undercover in a chat room as a minor and engaged in a long IM exchange with Reed, who disclosed sexual interest and potential meeting.
- Detective arranged for a meeting; Reed arrived at the Dunkin’ Donuts where Reed was arrested after contact with a decoy.
- A grand jury charged Reed with multiple Chapter 31 offenses (rape of a child, IDSI, statutory sexual assault, indecent assault) and with attempted unlawful contact with a minor.
- At trial, Reed was acquitted of all charged offenses except criminal attempt to commit unlawful contact with a minor.
- At sentencing, the court graded the § 6318 conviction as a first-degree felony, applying a grading not contingent on conviction of the underlying offenses.
- Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, prompting the Commonwealth to seek review on proper grading under § 6318.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper grading under § 6318(b) when underlying offenses are acquitted | Commonwealth contends § 6318(b)(1) yields first-degree felony grading regardless of acquittal of underlying offenses. | Reed argues grading must reflect acquitted underlying offenses and default to § 6318(b)(2). | Default grading applies; acquittals limit grading to misdemeanor or lowest applicable tier. |
| Whether § 6318(a) requires conviction of underlying offenses for proper grading | Commonwealth asserts underlying offenses are not prerequisites for grading. | Reed argues underlying offenses and acquittals control grading decisions. | Grading not contingent on conviction of the underlying offenses; acquittals influence sentencing grading. |
| Role of acquittals as to sentencing under § 6318 when charges are pursued separately | Commonwealth relies on statutory language to support felonious grading. | Reed emphasizes the special weight of acquittals and the need to avoid absurd results. | Acquittals carry special weight; the default grading must apply when underlying offenses are acquitted. |
| Clarification of Magliocco precedents in grading § 6318(a) when predicate offenses are charged | Magliocco I/II are distinguishable and not controlling because § 6318 does not require predicate conviction. | Magliocco language could influence whether underlying offenses affect grading. | Magliocco’s contingent-predicate reasoning is limited; applies only as contextual guidance, not controlling. |
| Constitutional considerations under Apprendi if non-default grading is used | Argues wrong to apply non-default grading without jury findings on prohibited activity. | Contends no direct Apprendi issue given facts; reflects practical sentencing concerns. | Majority uses default grading to avoid Apprendi concerns and ensure consistent sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa.2010) (purely legal question; plenary review; statutory interpretation.)
- Commonwealth v. Patton, 985 A.2d 1283 (Pa.2009) (sentencing and statutory construction guidance.)
- Magliocco II, 883 A.2d 479 (Pa.2005) (acquittals carry special weight; contingent offense analysis.)
- Magliocco I, 806 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (initial consideration of grading linked to predicate offenses.)
- Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770 (Pa.1997) (acquittal significance in related offenses.)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981) (acquittal carries strong finality; sentencing implications.)
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 913 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (unlawful contact with a minor completed upon contact for prohibited activity.)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (policy considerations in unlawful contact prosecutions.)