Commonwealth v. Scott
73 A.3d 599
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- On May 11, 2011, Appellant and friends were in an apartment; they feared Jeremiah Shoop, who had threatened them and then arrived at the door aggressively.
- Ledford distributed guns and fired warning shots; the apartment went dark and occupants were ordered to lie down.
- Appellant saw a standing silhouette he believed was Shoop firing (or attempting to fire) and returned fire; the silhouette was actually his friend Lemin, who was wounded.
- Appellant was charged with attempted murder and conspiracy (victim: Shoop) and aggravated assault and REAP (victim: Lemin). He was acquitted on the Shoop-related counts but convicted of aggravated assault and REAP.
- At trial the court gave a self-defense instruction but refused Appellant’s requested mistake-of-fact instruction; Appellant appealed claiming the omission prejudiced his defense as to Lemin.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a separate mistake-of-fact instruction tailored to the Lemin-related charges.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing a mistake-of-fact jury instruction | Appellant argued he reasonably mistook Lemin for Shoop when he fired, negating the recklessness element for aggravated assault and REAP | Trial court/Ct. of Common Pleas viewed mistake-of-fact as subsumed within the self-defense/justification instruction and therefore refused a separate charge | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion; a separate mistake-of-fact instruction should have been given as to Lemin-related charges |
| Whether self-defense instruction alone was sufficient to cover a reasonable mistake about the identity of the silhouette | Appellant contended mistake-of-fact is a distinct statutory defense (18 Pa.C.S. §304) and must be charged when supported by evidence | Trial court and dissent argued the justification/self-defense charge already allowed jurors to consider a reasonable mistaken belief and thus covered the defense | Majority: statutory distinction and two-victim scenario required separate instruction; failure to give it prejudiced Appellant |
| Whether self-defense and mistake-of-fact defenses are mutually exclusive | Appellant: defenses can coexist where defendant intentionally aimed at one person (Shoop) in self-defense but unintentionally wounded another (Lemin) by mistake | Commonwealth/trial court relied on precedents holding mutual exclusivity when facts show only accident or only intentional self-defense | Majority: Hobson and Harris are distinguishable; under these facts defenses are not mutually exclusive |
| Whether omission of instruction was prejudicial requiring new trial | Appellant argued jury might have accepted mistake-of-fact and acquitted on AA and REAP | Commonwealth argued jury could resolve issues under justification charge; no abuse of discretion | Court held omission could have changed outcome and required a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for reviewing jury-charge claims)
- Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 766 A.2d 874 (Pa. Super. 2001) (trial court must clearly, adequately, accurately present law on affirmative defenses)
- Commonwealth v. Hobson, 398 A.2d 1364 (Pa. 1979) (distinguishing self-defense from misadventure where defenses are mutually exclusive)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 665 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1995) (self-defense unavailable where defendant also claims the shooting was accidental)
- Commonwealth v. Lesher, 373 A.2d 1088 (Pa. 1977) (jury instruction error is reversible when correct instruction might have led to different verdict)