COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Margaret DELLISANTI, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Oct. 20, 2004. Decided June 21, 2005.
876 A.2d 366
Peter Carr, for Philadelphia D.A.‘s Office and PA D.A.‘s Ass‘n, appellant amicus curiae.
Michael James Reed, Paoli, for Margaret Dellisanti, appellee.
BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.
OPINION
Justice NEWMAN.
The Commonwealth appeals from an Order of the Superior Court, reversing the Judgment of Sentence imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (“trial court“). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Order of the Superior Court and hold that because the meaning of the Corrupt Organizations Act is plain on its face, it was unnecessary to resort to statutory construction, and Appellee‘s conviction under the statute was proper.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellee Margaret Dellisanti (“Dellisanti“) owned a retail store, Main Changes, in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where she sold clothing, jewelry, and perfume. On September 14, 1999, Detective Erik Echevarria (“Detective Echevarria“) of the Montgomery County Detectives Narcotics Enforcement Team (“NET“), who was working undercover, entered Main Changes intending to purchase plastic baggies and Inositol.1 After observing that neither item was displayed nor offered for sale,
Detective Echevarria returned to Main Changes on September 28, 1999, October 4, 1999, and October 20, 1999. Each time he purchased Inositol and baggies from either Vallone or Dellisanti. NET members later executed a search warrant for Main Changes, seizing boxes of Inositol, baggies, and other drug paraphernalia.
Dellisanti was subsequently charged with various crimes relating to the narcotics officers’ investigation. After Dellisanti withdrew her nolo contendere plea, a two-day jury trial commenced. At trial, the officers testified that Inositol and the baggies were drug paraphernalia. The evidence also established that Dellisanti had a large quantity of drug paraphernalia on the premises, including: (1) 156 one-ounce vials of Inositol; (2) thousands of colored glassine baggies; (3) thousands of silver and gold smoking and cooking screens; (4) two bottles of Purafyzit;3 and (5) fifty-seven cakes of Mannitol.4 Additionally, the officers discovered tax records, invoices, ledgers, bank statements, and inventory records indicating the cost and value of the drug paraphernalia on the premises.
Dellisanti was found guilty of two counts of Corrupt Organizations,5 five counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver Drug
Dellisanti then filed a timely Notice of Appeal contending, inter alia, that the Corrupt Organizations convictions should not apply to a defendant based on facts like those in the instant case. She argued that the Corrupt Organizations Act (“Act“),
On appeal to the Superior Court, Dellisanti claimed that the trial court erred by denying her Motion for Arrest of Judgment for Corrupt Organizations. The Superior Court held that the trial court did err, and that, although Dellisanti
Judge Joyce filed a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, joined by Judges Hudock, Stevens, and Graci, in which he disagreed with the Majority‘s holding regarding the Corrupt Organizations conviction. He opined that “the Majority [went] to great lengths to explain the purpose and the reasons for the enactment of the [Act].... Yet, conspicuously absent from the Majority‘s discussion is any reference to the language of the statutory section under which Appellant was convicted.” Id. at 1172 (emphasis in the original). Judge Joyce cited the lack of analysis or application of the language of the statutory section. Id. Labeling this approach “incorrect” and “flaw[ed],” he instead considered the express language of the statute, without resorting to the legislative findings of fact or history, and concluded that the evidence sufficiently established Dellisanti‘s violation of the Act. Id. at 1172, 1178.
Judge Joyce stressed the similarity between the instant case and Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh, 706 A.2d 826 (Pa.Super.1997), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 558 Pa. 607, 736 A.2d 603 (1999). In Rickabaugh, the Superior Court affirmed a conviction for a violation of the Act where the defendant intertwined an otherwise legitimate bar business with his illegal cocaine business. The court concluded that the statutory section pursuant to which the defendant was convicted was clear on its face. Based on the Superior Court‘s previous holding in Rickabaugh, Judge Joyce opined that the conviction of Dellisanti should stand. Dellisanti, 831 A.2d at 1178.
In this case, we consider whether the decision of the Superior Court ignores the plain meaning of “organized crime” in the Act.8 To determine the meaning of a statute, a court must first determine whether the issue may be resolved by reference to the express language of the statute, which is to be read according to the plain meaning of the words.
Dellisanti was convicted of violating subsections (b)(3) and (4) of the Act, which state in pertinent part:
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise‘s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) or (3) of this subsection.
The sale of drug paraphernalia is indictable under the Controlled Substances Act; consequently, selling drug paraphernalia is “racketeering activity.” Dellisanti and Vallone engaged in at least four acts of selling drug paraphernalia from her store. These acts constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” pursuant to the definition provided in the Act.
Second, Dellisanti‘s retail store constitutes an “enterprise,” which is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, engaged in commerce and includes legitimate as well as illegitimate entities and governmental entities.”
Third, subsection (b)(3) of the Act, which requires the Commonwealth to prove that Dellisanti is associated with the enterprise in question, is satisfied because Dellisanti owned the retail store from which the drug paraphernalia was sold.
The Superior Court Majority erred when it ignored the plain meaning of the statutorily provided definitions and held that Dellisanti‘s conduct fell outside the scope of the Act, inasmuch as she “was not involved in ‘organized crime,’ did not undertake ‘the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption,’ and did not engage or conspire with others engaged in ‘techniques of violence [and] intimidation.’ ” Dellisanti, 831 A.2d at 1171.
Dellisanti avers that her conviction conflicts with the purpose of the Act. To support her argument, she relies on: (1) the prelude to the Act;9 and (2) our holding in Commonwealth v. Bobitski, 534 Pa. 310, 632 A.2d 1294 (1993).
Dellisanti relies on the perceived purpose or spirit of the Act, which she maintains is delineated in its prelude, to argue that the trial court improperly convicted her of Corrupt Organizations. Nevertheless, reference to the rules of construction, “such as consideration of a statute‘s perceived ‘object’ or ‘purpose’ are to be resorted to only when there is an ambiguity.” Dept. of Transportation v. Taylor, 576 Pa. 622, 841 A.2d 108, 112 (2004) (internal citations omitted). See also
She also contends that our holding in Bobitski affords her relief. In Bobitski, the defendant was charged with, inter alia, Corrupt Organizations and Commercial Bribery as a result of bribes he solicited from various contractors over several years. His employer was not involved in the scheme, and all money garnered in this process directly and solely benefited the defendant. This Court held that “[i]t was clearly and explicitly the intent of the corrupt organizations statute to ferret out organized crime ‘as it is commonly understood’ and to severely punish those persons who engage in organized crime through a ‘pattern of racketeering activity.’ ” Id. at 1296 (internal citations omitted). In affirming the Superior Court, we further noted that “[t]here are no facts alleged which lift the conduct of this particular white collar criminal out of the ordinary class of white collar criminals and make him appear to be part of the ‘sophisticated, diversified, and widespread phenomenon’ defined in the statute as organized crime.” Id. at 1297 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
This Court also noted that under Pennsylvania law, as opposed to federal law, the Commonwealth is required to demonstrate a nexus between the individual and/or enterprise facing prosecution and organized crime. See id. at 1297 n. 2.
In 1996, two years after our decision in Bobitski, the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended the Act to, inter alia, define “organized crime” in unambiguous terms. See Corrupt Organizations Act of 1972, P.L. 1482 No. 334, § 1, as amended P.L. 342, No. 55, § 1, June 19, 1996 (“1996 Amendments“). Pursuant to the 1996 Amendments, organized crime
What Dellisanti fails to acknowledge and account for is the effect the 1996 Amendments had on the vitality of this Court‘s holding in Bobitski. The Amendments provided a new definition for “organized crime,” which brought actions like those of Dellisanti‘s within the bounds of the Act. Once the General Assembly supplied this definition of organized crime, we became obligated to apply the plain meaning of the definition provided by the legislature. See Commonwealth v. Sitkin‘s Junk Co., 412 Pa. 132, 194 A.2d 199, 202 (1963) (“[w]e have long held that, where a statute contains its own definition, the meaning of the terms as defined at common law or as constructed under prior statutes is not controlling“).
Although actions similar to those of Dellisanti may not have been criminal under the Act when this Court decided Bobitski, we cannot deny that her actions fall within the current boundaries of the Act. Dellisanti‘s argument that her conviction under the Act conflicts with our holding in Bobitski is meritless. This Court specifically noted that the definition of “organized crime” must guide any determination of guilt under the Act. See Bobitski, 632 A.2d at 1297. Hence, Dellisanti‘s second argument for relief fails.10
Chief Justice CAPPY files a dissenting opinion in which Justices CASTILLE and NIGRO join.
Chief Justice CAPPY dissenting.
The majority reinstates Appellee‘s conviction under the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act (“PaCOA“),
First, I note that the amendment in question occurred in June of 1996 and was specifically directed to the decision of this court in Commonwealth v. Besch, 544 Pa. 1, 674 A.2d 655 (1996),1 not the earlier unanimous decision in Bobitski. Sec-
When construing a statute, this court is guided by the rules set forth by the legislature. See,
In the construction of the statutes of this Commonwealth, the rules set forth in this chapter shall be observed, unless the application of such rules would result in a construction inconsistent with the manifest intent of the General Assembly.
This principle guided us in our analysis in Bobitski. Bobitski was an employee of Thrift Drug who used his position within the business to solicit bribes from various contractors. There was no evidence linking Bobitski to organized crime. In reversing the conviction in Bobitski, we examined the statute in depth, noting with great deference, the long detailed preamble the legislature set forth. Bobitski, 632 A.2d at 1296. Because of the care and detail offered by the legislature in the section titled “Findings of fact,”
This court again examined PaCOA in Besch. In that instance, the court was faced with a wholly illegal criminal
In direct response to the decision in Besch, the legislature amended PaCOA to extend the reach of PaCOA beyond the infiltration of organized crime into legitimate businesses and to capture any wholly illegitimate enterprises run for profit through a pattern of racketeering activity. See
In applying this law to the matter sub judice, we note that the evidence as adduced by the Commonwealth established that Appellee is the owner of a clothing store, a legitimate business enterprise. In the store, she maintained a supply of unadvertised items secreted behind the counter. Appellee and her employee sold this inventory of hidden drug paraphernalia in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
By interpreting this statute in a fashion that utilizes its words to reach a result unintended by the manifest intent of the legislature, the Majority is undoing what the legislature worked so diligently to do in the first place. This piece of legislation was never designed to enhance the penalty of any average criminal; it was cleverly and intelligently drafted to seek out and punish a specific segment of the society engaged in the heinous and nefarious business of organized crime. To assert that a conviction of the Appellee in this case reflects the plain language of PaCOA when such a result completely ignores the established legislative intent of the statute sets the concept of statutory construction on its head.
For the reasons stated above, I cannot endorse the rationale or result of the majority; accordingly, I am compelled to dissent.
Justices CASTILLE and NIGRO join this dissenting opinion.