Commonwealth v. Weir
201 A.3d 163
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- On April 13, 2016 Christopher Weir entered Jacob Korimko’s garage, shouted that Korimko owed him money, and allegedly punched Korimko’s 2012 Kawasaki motorcycle, severely damaging the headlight assembly, cowl, gauge cluster, and related parts.
- Korimko testified he paid $1,492 to replace damaged parts and received an additional estimate of about $1,000 to repaint the bike, which he did not pay before trial.
- Nonjury trial: Weir convicted of criminal mischief (intentionally damaging property) and summary harassment; sentenced to consecutive probation terms and ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution.
- Post-sentence motion argued (1) criminal mischief verdict was against the weight of the evidence because Weir denied touching the motorcycle; and (2) the $2,000 restitution exceeded Korimko’s actual loss ($1,492 paid by trial date).
- Trial court denied relief; Weir appealed raising weight-of-evidence and restitution challenges. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Weir's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions (criminal mischief and harassment) were against the weight of the evidence | Evidence and victim testimony support intentional damage; trial court credited victim | Victim’s testimony was inconsistent and implausible; appellant denied striking the bike | Criminal mischief weight claim preserved and rejected — trial court did not abuse discretion. Harassment weight claim waived for failure to raise in post-sentence motion |
| Whether $2,000 restitution was speculative / unsupported by record | Restitution authorized under 18 Pa.C.S. §1106 because conviction, victim loss, and direct causal nexus established; amount within court’s discretion | Restitution exceeded the actual loss as of sentencing; lacking corroborating receipts or repair-shop info; speculative | Claim challenges discretionary aspect (amount) not legality; Weir failed to include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) so issue waived; restitution order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and limits for weight-of-evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate deference to trial court on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 73 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Super. 2013) (fact-finder’s role in assessing credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preservation requirement for weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Harner, 617 A.2d 702 (Pa. 1992) (restitution authority and limits)
- Commonwealth v. Pappas, 845 A.2d 842 (Pa. Super. 2004) (direct causal nexus required for restitution under §1106)
- In re M.W., 725 A.2d 729 (Pa. 1999) (distinguishing legality vs. discretionary challenges to restitution)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 158 A.3d 671 (Pa. Super. 2017) (restitution illegal where causal nexus to loss not established)
- Commonwealth v. Gerulis, 616 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1992) ("but‑for" test for restitution causation)
- Commonwealth v. Pleger, 934 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2007) (record must support restitution amount)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 543 A.2d 587 (Pa. Super. 1988) (restitution amount must not be speculative)