Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254

Appellant Robert Franklin Tyack was observed loitering at ~3:00 a.m.; officers recognized him from prior contacts and knew he was prohibited from possessing an electronic incapacitation device due to a prior domestic-violence conviction.
Corporal Venios asked whether Tyack had a stun gun; Tyack admitted it was in his right front pocket and resisted when officers attempted to retrieve it; he was arrested.
Commonwealth charged Tyack under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908.1(c) for possession of an electric or electronic incapacitation device by a prohibited person; a jury convicted him.
Before trial, the Commonwealth moved in limine to bar evidence/argument that the stun gun was inoperable (lacked batteries); the trial court granted the motion and excluded operability evidence.
Tyack was sentenced to 60 days to 1 year; he appealed, raising (1) that the court erred by excluding inoperability evidence and (2) insufficiency of evidence regarding his prohibited status.
The appellate court affirmed: it held operability was irrelevant under the statute’s definition and Tyack’s sufficiency claim was waived for an inadequately specific Rule 1925(b) statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by excluding evidence that the stun gun was inoperable	Tyack: operability is relevant to possession offense and jury should decide	Commonwealth: operability is not an element or a defense to § 908.1(c); irrelevant	Court: Exclusion proper—statutory definition covers devices “designed or intended” to incapacitate regardless of current operability
Whether evidence was insufficient to prove Tyack was prohibited from possessing the device	Tyack: Commonwealth failed to prove he was ineligible (e.g., domestic-violence basis)	Commonwealth: evidence at trial established prohibition; issue preserved	Court: Waived—Tyack’s Rule 1925(b) statement failed to specify which element was insufficiently proven, so appellate review barred

Commonwealth v. Zortman, 23 A.3d 519 (Pa. 2011) (statutory definition controls; inoperable weapon may still qualify if designed to perform proscribed function)
Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 7 A.3d 830 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion and prejudice required for reversal)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (insufficiency claims must identify specific elements in Rule 1925(b) statement or are waived)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 1925(b) waiver applied consistently despite appellee’s failure to object)