Commonwealth v. Sinnott
30 A.3d 1105
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Commonwealth appeals the Superior Court's reversal of Sinnott's ethnic intimidation conviction.
- Incident occurred May 21, 2007, when Evelyn Rojas was attacked with a drill and harassed with ethnic slurs by Sinnott.
- Sinnott shouted racial/ethnic insults toward Rojas and her father, and threatened violence.
- Rojas suffered physical injury (nails ripped) during the encounter; police were summoned and Sinnott was arrested.
- Sinnott was convicted of simple assault, terroristic threats, ethnic intimidation, and possession of instruments of crime; he received four to 23 months for simple assault and four years probation for terroristic threats.
- Superior Court reversed Sinnott’s ethnic intimidation conviction, holding the record did not prove ethnicity was the primary basis of his conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must ethnic intimidation require sole ethnic motive? | Commonwealth: no; multiple motives may coexist with ethnic malice. | Sinnott: Ethnic malice must be sole motivating factor. | No; ethno-malice need not be sole motivator. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ferino, 433 Pa. Super. 306, 640 A.2d 934 (Pa. Super. 1994) (ethnic intimidation can be based on multiple motivations if ethnic malice is present)
- In re M.J.M., 858 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2004) (statutory interpretation of § 2710's malicious intent)
- Commonwealth v. Rink, 393 Pa. Super. 554, 574 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 1990) (statutory interpretation of malicious intent in § 2710)
- Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 594 Pa. 176, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Bavusa, 574 Pa. 620, 832 A.2d 1042 (Pa. 2003) (plenary scope of statutory interpretation for crimes)
- People v. Schutter, 265 Mich. App. 423, 695 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (ethnic intimidation can be formed during the commission of the underlying act)