Commonwealth v. Toomer, 159 A.3d 956

On April 1, 2015, Delroy Toomer retrieved a firearm from a friend’s car after a passenger (Jason Rowe) was shot; Rowe later died though Toomer was not charged in relation to the death.
Toomer, who lacked a license to carry, took Angelic Toomer’s purse containing two licensed firearms to his apartment and placed the guns on the kitchen counter and refrigerator before later returning the purse to Angelic at the hospital.
Police obtained consent to search the apartment and recovered the firearms where Toomer had left them.
Toomer gave inconsistent statements to police (initially blaming Angelic) and later provided what police believed was the truthful account.
A jury convicted Toomer of carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1)) and tampering with physical evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910(1)).
The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the firearms charge as de minimis and sentenced Toomer to 15–30 months’ imprisonment for the firearms conviction (probation concurrent for tampering). The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the carrying-a-firearm-without-a-license charge should be dismissed as de minimis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 312	The Commonwealth argued the statute criminalizes unlicensed carriage itself and that Toomer’s conduct was not de minimis given the public danger posed by unlicensed firearms possession	Toomer argued his conduct was trivial, did not threaten the harm the statute seeks to prevent, and fell within customary tolerance	Court held the statute’s purpose is to prevent mere possession by unlicensed persons; absence of additional harm does not make the offense de minimis — denial affirmed
Whether evidence was insufficient to convict Toomer of tampering with evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910(1))	Commonwealth argued circumstantial evidence supported that Toomer knew an investigation would follow Rowe’s shooting and intentionally concealed/removed firearms to impair the investigation	Toomer argued he did not know an investigation was pending and lacked intent to impair its verity or availability	Court held evidence, when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, permitted inference Toomer knew an investigation was imminent and concealed the guns with intent to impair it — conviction affirmed

Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard of review for de minimis dismissal is abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Przybyla, 722 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. 1998) (de minimis dismissal principles)
Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Moses, 504 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1986) (de minimis inquiry considers actual harm to victim or society)
Commonwealth v. Corradino, 588 A.2d 936 (Pa. Super. 1991) (purpose of Uniform Firearms Act to regulate dangerous firearms possession)
Commonwealth v. Baxter, 956 A.2d 465 (Pa. Super. 2008) (statutory intent to prohibit certain persons from possessing firearms)
Commonwealth v. Delgado, 679 A.2d 223 (Pa. 1996) (abandonment of contraband versus concealment for tampering analysis)
Commonwealth v. Gettemy, 591 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. 1991) (requirements for proving removal with intent to impair availability)
Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (sufficiency review standard; inferences from circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Duncan, 932 A.2d 226 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sufficiency standard and review approach)
Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (evidence sufficient when it establishes each material element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2006) (factfinder may accept or reject testimony)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 904 A.2d 24 (Pa. Super. 2006) (elements required to prove tampering with evidence)