Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2258 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Vo ANN MARIE KINER · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ·2000-2258 CRIMINAL IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., May 31, 2001 The defendant was charged with one count of theft by unlawful taking in violation of Section 3921(a) of the Crimes Code. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case, we granted her motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Pa. Rule of Criminal Procedure 1124(a)(1). The Commonwealth filed this timely appeal. The Commonwealth's entire case consisted of three witnesses. The first was the defendant's father. He testified that the defendant moved out of his home to live with her ~ He boyfriend. A week or so later, money was missing from a box in his son's bedroom. 2 The further testified that the money belonged to him because his son owed it to him. witness never testified that he placed any of his own money into the box. Nor did he testify that he ever exercised any control over that money. He merely testified that the money was his because his son owed it to him. The Commonwealth's next witness was a friend of the defendant. She testified that she accompanied the defendant to her father's home on the day in question. The purpose of the visit was for defendant to retrieve some personal belongings as well as 3 After searching her bedroom, defendant some money she had left in her bedroom. The son, defendant's brother, was an adult at the time of the incident. The son sold the father's sweet corn crop while the father was hospitalized for a cancer operation. There is no evidence that the defendant was not authorized to enter the home to get her belongings. stated that her money was missing. She opined that someone must have found her secret hiding place. She searched the house trying to find it. She found $275 in her brother's bedroom and took it. The final witness was Trooper Chad Sydnor of the Pennsylvania State Police. He testified that he talked to the defendant regarding the missing money. She freely admitted that she took the money, claiming that it was owed to her. We granted the motion for judgment of acquittal because we felt the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth's evidence showed only that she took money which she thought belonged to her. Her father testified that he thought the money belonged to him.4 Interestingly enough, the brother did not testify. We felt that critical 5 omission was fatal to the Commonwealth's case. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Michael W. Mervine, Esquire For the Commonwealth H. Anthony Adams, Esquire For the Defendant :sld 4 Since he never had possession of the money, it is hard for us to concei_~~,.~lai~'tq O~tel~ any superior to that of the defendant. s We note that even if we granted the motion for judgment of acquittal in error, the Commonwealth is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause 6f the 5th Amendment to the United Stat~s~C~n~t on from filing this appeal. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 1745 (1986).