S.A., a minor, by her father H.O. v. Pittsburgh Public SD
160 A.3d 940
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- S.A., a 14-year-old 10th-grade student, stabbed another student multiple times in the neck with a sharpened pencil during a classroom incident after a dispute over a cap. The victim received medical treatment and could have been more seriously injured.
- Pittsburgh Public School District charged S.A. under Rule #6 of its Code of Student Conduct, which prohibits possession/handling/transmission of a “weapon” and lists examples (knife, cutting instrument/tool, explosive, mace, nunchaku, firearm, shotgun, rifle) followed by “any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.” Violation carries a mandatory one-year expulsion (with limited superintendent discretion).
- A hearing officer found the facts established and recommended a one-year expulsion; the Board adopted that recommendation. S.A. appealed to the trial court, which reversed, holding a pencil is not a “weapon” under Rule #6.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether a sharpened pencil qualifies as a “weapon” under Rule #6 (and the nearly identical statutory definition in 24 P.S. §13‑1317.2(g)), focusing on statutory interpretation principles rather than intent or manner of use.
- The court applied noscitur a sociis and especially the ejusdem generis canon, concluding the broad catch‑all phrase must be limited to objects similar in nature to the enumerated traditional weapons; a pencil is not of that class.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, holding that a pencil is not a “weapon” under Rule #6 and that the District overreached by expelling S.A. under that rule (the District could pursue discipline under other Code provisions for assault).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.A.) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sharpened pencil is a “weapon” under Rule #6 / §1317.2(g) | Rule #6 governs possession of certain objects only; a pencil is not similar to enumerated weapons and ejusdem generis excludes it | A sharpened pencil used to stab can be an implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury and thus is a weapon under the catch‑all language | A pencil is not a “weapon” under Rule #6; court applies ejusdem generis to limit the catch‑all to items similar to enumerated traditional weapons |
| Whether Rule #6 requires consideration of manner/intent of use when defining “weapon” | Not directly argued as main point; relies on object‑based definition and ejusdem generis | District contends object’s capability suffices; actual harm supports weapon classification | Court follows Picone: analysis focuses on the object’s inherent capabilities, but ejusdem generis still limits scope to objects akin to listed weapons; manner of use cannot convert a non‑listed benign classroom item into a listed‑type weapon under Rule #6 |
| Whether Rule #6’s wording gives sufficient notice that a pencil could be a weapon | S.A. contends no notice—pencils are ordinary classroom items, not like listed weapons | District argues catch‑all gives adequate notice because it covers implements capable of inflicting serious injury | Court finds including pencils would be unreasonable/absurd and fail to give proper notice; ejusdem generis prevents such breadth |
| Whether the Board’s action (one‑year expulsion) was permissible under Rule #6 | Implicit: discipline for assault available but not expulsion under Rule #6 for pencil possession | District enforced mandatory expulsion under Rule #6 | Court holds Board overreached under Rule #6; alternative disciplinary rules could apply but were not the basis here |
Key Cases Cited
- Picone v. Bangor Area Sch. Dist., 936 A.2d 556 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (object‑centered analysis: items designed to inflict harm may be weapons even if not enumerated)
- Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998) (applies ejusdem generis to limit broad statutory catch‑all to remedies consistent with enumerated examples)
- Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 822 A.2d 676 (Pa. 2003) (canon against statutory surplusage; give effect to all provisions)
- McClellan v. Health Maint. Org. of Pa., 686 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1996) (defines ejusdem generis: general words after specific enumeration limited to same general kind)