Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0001635-2018 COMMONWEALTH v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUAN ROSA-VEGA CP-21-CR-1635-2018 IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT PLACEY, C.P.J. 14 SEPTEMBER 2018 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 Defendant is charged with one count of terroristic threats and one count of 2 possessing instruments of crime. On June 6, 2018, a preliminary hearing was held, the charges bound over, and the Defendant was set for arraignment on August 23, 2018. On July 20, 2018, Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case for both charges and requesting the charges be dismissed. On September 2, 2018, the Commonwealth filed an Answer to Defendant’s Motion and a hearing was held on September 5, 2018. The preliminary hearing was provided for the review, without additional testimony. STATEMENT OF FACTS The charges arose from an incident that took place at the Quality Uni-Mart on Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, on April 16, 2018. At the preliminary 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1) 2 Id. at § 907(a) CR-1635-2018 hearing, a customer (Victim) testified about the incident that occurred between himself and the Defendant at the Uni-Mart. The incident started when the Defendant hit the mirror on the Victim’s truck with the Defendant’s SUV door. Inside the store, the Victim saw the Defendant and said “hey, you know you hit my truck.” The Defendant denied hitting the mirror and left the store. The Victim got in his truck and went to leave but the Defendant pulled up quickly behind him. The Victim stopped his truck, got out and started walking toward the Defendant’s vehicle and asked the Defendant “what’s your problem?” The Defendant held a knife and mouthed the words, “I’ll fucking cut your throat” when the Victim was about ten feet away from him. The Defendant then drove away. The Victim called the police and reported the incident. New Cumberland Officer Brian Staley (Officer) testified that he was dispatched to the Uni-Mart to meet with the Victim. The Victim provided the Officer with details of the incident and the Defendant’s license plate number. The Officer ran the plate number and went to the residence where the car was registered. The Officer found the vehicle and the Defendant at the residence. He interviewed the Defendant and identified him as the driver. The Officer learned that there was a tactical knife kept inside the vehicle and recovered it. The Victim testified that the Defendant held a knife similar to the one recovered. DISCUSSION Statement of Law: The scope of review for a Habeas Corpus Petition is “limited to deciding whether a prima facie case was established at the preliminary hearing.” Commonwealth v. Kowalek, 647 A.2d 948, 949 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citation omitted). At the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must present evidence that establishes “sufficient probable cause” that the particular crime was committed and by the accused. 2 CR-1635-2018 Commonwealth v. Neckerauer, 617 A.2d 1281, 1286 (Pa. Super. 1992) (citation omitted). Terroristic threats, found at section 2706(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code provides that “\[a\] person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another.” The Crimes Code prohibits possessing instruments of crime at section 907, which penalizes a person “if he possesses any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally.” Section 907(d)(2) defines “instrument of crime” as “\[a\]nything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have.” Case law states an act alone is sufficient to make a terroristic threat; verbal communication is not required. In re: Maloney, 636 A.2d 671,676 (Pa. Super. 1994). The court in Maloney concluded probable cause for terroristic threats was established because of both the statement made and the act of pointing a gun suggested the victim would be shot if he did not leave. Id. Application of Law to the Facts: The instant case is factually similar to Maloney which determined there was a prima facie case for terroristic threat charges. In Maloney, the defendant was driving too close behind the victim’s vehicle. Id. at 672. The victim stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road and approached the defendant shouting and waving his hands. Id. The defendant pulled a gun and told the victim to leave. Id. The disputed issue in Maloney was whether the district attorney abused his discretion when he refused to file criminal charges, but the court concluded that “there 3 CR-1635-2018 was probable cause and also prima facie evidence to support a prosecution for . . . making a terroristic threat under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706.” Id. at 674. In the instant case, the Defendant made a threat while holding a weapon as the Victim was approaching the Defendant’s SUV. The Defendant communicated directly to the Victim a threat to commit a crime of violence with the intent to terrorize when the Defendant held a knife and said he was going to “cut your throat.” The involvement of a knife in this unlawful manner establishes it as an “instrument of crime.” The Commonwealth has established a prima facie case for both charges as the evidence shows sufficient probable cause that a criminal act occurred and the Defendant committed some level of that action. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14 day of September 2018, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Petition for Habeas Corpus, the Commonwealth response thereto, and the evidence from the hearing, the Petition is DENIED. By the Court, ________________________ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: Scott Jocken, Esq. Joshua Yohe, Esq. Court Administration 4