151 A.3d 1113
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- On March 19, 2014, Williams allegedly assaulted a victim and threatened her with a gun in York County.
- Williams was prosecuted federally under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession by a felon) based on the same incident and was acquitted by a jury on April 7, 2015.
- Pennsylvania charged Williams under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1) (persons not to possess firearms) arising from the same incident.
- Williams moved to dismiss the state § 6105 charge under 18 Pa.C.S. § 111, arguing his federal acquittal barred the state prosecution; the trial court denied the motion on October 9, 2015.
- Williams timely appealed the denial; the Superior Court reviewed whether § 111 barred reprosecution after an acquittal in another jurisdiction when statutes require different elements or target different harms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 111 bars Pennsylvania prosecution after a federal acquittal for the same conduct | Williams: federal acquittal bars state prosecution because both statutes aim to prevent possession of firearms by convicted offenders (substantially similar evils) | Commonwealth: § 111 does not bar prosecution because each statute requires proof of a fact the other does not and they are intended to prevent substantially different harms | Denied—§ 111 exception applies: statutes require different facts and prevent substantially different harms, so prosecution may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Calloway, 675 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. 1996) (sets out the three-step § 111(1)(i) analysis: same conduct, differing elements, and differing harms)
- Commonwealth v. Wetton, 591 A.2d 1067 (Pa. Super. 1991) (places burden on prosecution to disprove a prima facie § 111 claim by a preponderance)
- Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 821 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 2003) (explains § 6105’s purpose: protect the public from convicted criminals possessing firearms)