Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2740 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-2740 CRIMINAL TERM EDWARD GERALD SNYDER OTN: E923253-2 CHARGE: (2) CRIMINAL TRESPASS (3-A) THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING (VEHICLE) (4-A) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO BURGLARY (4-B) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO CRIMINAL TRESPASS (4-C) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO THEFT (VEHICLE) IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., October ~2., 2000. In this criminal case, Defendant has appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of sentence following guilty verdicts rendered by a jury at Count 2 of Criminal Trespass,1 at Count 3-A of Theft by Unlawful Taking (Vehicle),2 at Count 4-A of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Burglary,3 at Count 4-B of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Criminal Trespass,4 and at Count 4-C of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking (Vehicle).5 The bases for Defendant's appeal are (1) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's omnibus pretrial motion in the form of a motion to dismiss, and (2) that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdicts. The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley issued an opinion on March 23, 2000, in support of his pretrial order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. This opinion, written See 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(a)(1)(i)(Supp. 2000). See 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3921(a). See 18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a) and 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3502(a). See 18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a)and 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(a)(1)(i). See 18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a) and 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3921(a). pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), will therefore address only Defendant's second ground for appeal, insufficiency of the evidence. STATEMENT OF FACTS The test for sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case has been expressed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court as follows: The test to be applied in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, accepting as tree all the evidence and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom upon which, if believed, the trier of fact could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime or crimes with which he has been charged. As with all challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the Commonwealth.6 The Commonwealth is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence,7 and the jury, as trier-of-fact, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.8 The evidence presented at trial may be summarized as follows. On Sunday, March 21, 1999, Defendant, Edward G. Snyder, and his girlfriend at the time, Tonia McCole, were traveling east on the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Ohio.9 Around Breezewood, Pennsylvania, their car broke down and they stopped to have it repaked? After the repairs were completed, Defendant and Ms. McCole got back onto the Pennsylvania turnpike and continued east until Carlisle, Pennsylvania, when their car 6 Commonwealth v. Barnes, 310 Pa. Super. 480, 482-83, 456 A.2d 1037, 1038 (1983). 7 Commonwealth v. Gease, 548 Pa. 165, 168, 696 A.2d 130, 132 (1997), cert. denied 522 U.S. 935, 139 L. Ed. 2d. 266, 118 S. Ct. 343 (1997). Commonwealth v. Tate, 485 Pa. 180, 182, 401 A.2d 353, 354 (1979). N.T. 75-80, 152, Jury Trial, May 9, 10, and 11, 2000 (hereinafter N.T. ~0 N.T. 80, 152. broke down again.1~ Defendant walked to a call box on the Turnpike to call for a tow.~2 An employee of John's Mobile Repair Service, driving a flatbed tow truck, responded to Defendant's call and towed the car to John's Mobile Repair Service,~3 located in the North Middleton Township in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.TM Defendant and Ms. McCole rode in the tow truck to John's Mobile.~5 When they arrived at John's Mobile, Defendant and Ms. McCole were taken to a lobby area and shown where the bathrooms and telephones were for their use.16 After making several calls, Defendant and Ms. McCole were unable to £md anyone to come pick them up.17 Two different versions of what occurred after this were presented to the jury. Tonia McCole, a witness for the Commonwealth, testified to the following version of events: After the employee of John's Mobile left, Defendant walked through a door, leading into the receptionist's office, stating that he would be right back.18 Defendant returned a few minutes later with keys in his hand and then went back into the office.19 When Defendant returned the second time, again with keys in his hand, he asked Ms. ~ N.T. 80, 152. 12 N.T. 81, 153. 13 N.T. 80-1, 154. 14 N.T. 47-8. 15 N.T. 81, 154. 16 N.T. 82, 156. ~? N.T. 84-5, 156. 18 N.T. 86-7. When testifying as to which door Tonia saw Defendant enter, Tonia referred to a sketch of John's Mobile Repair Service, Commonwealth's Exhibit 3, which was drawn by the owner of the business, John Cunningham. In referring to this Exhibit, Tonia stated that Defendant entered the door on the Exhibit marked in red, next to the office window. John Cunningham testified that the door marked in red on Commonwealth's Exhibit 3 led to the receptionist's office where keys to all the cars at the shop are hung on a board on the wall. See N.T. 53-4. 19 N.T. 88. 3 McCole if she thought the keys would match a car outside.2° Ms. McCole replied that she did not know if they would match but that she would try them.2~ Ms. McCole tried the keys and found that they matched a beige/yellow Chrysler New Yorker? Ms. McCole started the car, Defendant got into the passenger seat, and they drove off.23 Ms. McCole testified that they did not have permission to take the car.24 She stated that they got back onto the Turnpike and drove home to Lansford, Pennsylvania.25 Ms. McCole testified that during the following week Defendant used the car once or twice and that they drove to Reading, Pennsylvania, one day.26 Then on Friday, while in Lansford, Ms. McCole and Defendant were parked on the side of a certain street in the Chrysler New Yorker when a patrolman by the name of Charles Whitehead pulled up in his marked police car.27 Patrolman Whitehead, who had received a report respecting the stolen vehicle, told Ms. McCole and Defendant to get out of the car and took them into custody? Defendant's testimony about what took place at John's Mobile Repair Service and the events of the following week was different fi:om that of Ms. McCole. Defendant's version of the events was as follows: An employee of John's Mobile, John Alleman, sat down and was talking to him and Ms. McCole about where the bathrooms and telephones 20 N.T. 88. 21 N.T. 88. 22 N.T. 89. 23 N.T. 89-90. 24 N.T. 102. 25 N.T. 90. 26 N.T. 91. 27 N.T. 92, 126-27. 28 N.T. 92. Patrolman Charles Whitehead testified that he was responding to a report to look for a gold Chrysler New Yorker, license ALW7964, which was possibly stolen. He stated that he located the New Yorker, which was parked with Tonia McCole behind the wheel and Defendant in the front passenger seat. See N.T. 126-27. 4 were located.29 Mr. Alleman put some car keys on the table the coffee was on and then he left.3° Defendant pointed the keys out to Ms. McCole and she started talking about how they could leave their car at John's Mobile as collateral and take the other car.3~ Defendant testified that he then went to the bathroom and when he returned Tonia was already in the car and said, "Let's go.''32 Defendant stated that Tonia then drove them home and that he never drove the car anytime that week.33 In addition to the testimony discussed above, the Commonwealth also presented testimony from Sue Shock. Ms. Shock, owner of the Chrysler New Yorker, testified that she had left her car at John's Mobile to have repair work done because her engine light was coming on.34 She testified that she did not give Defendant permission to use her car, nor did she give anyone at John's Mobile permission to give the car to Defendant.35 Ms. Shock also testified about a parking ticket from Reading that she received for a violation that occurred on March 23, 1999, during the week her car was missing.36 Finally, Ms. Shock testified about a letter she received from Defendant.37 A portion of that letter read as follows: "[M]y name is Edward Snyder, and unfortunately I was involved with the 29 N.T. 156. 3o N.T. 156. 31 N.T. 157. 32 N.T. 157. Defendant testified that the bathroom door was the only interior door he entered at John's Mobile Repair Service and that he never went into the receptionist's office. See N.T. 167-69. 33 N.T. 34 N.T. 35 N.T. 36 N.T. 37 N.T. 158, 177. 15. 24. 17-9. See Commonwealth's Exhibit 1. 21. See Commonwealth's Exhibit 2. 5 theft of your car in March. I would like to apologize to you. I am very sorry for what I have done .... ,38 The letter was signed "Edward D. Snyder.''39 The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of John Alleman, who worked for John's Mobile Repair Service in March, 1999, and John Cunningham, the owner of John's Mobile. Mr. Alleman and Mr. Cunningham testified about the set-up of John's Mobile Repair Service, such as where the bathrooms, office, and telephones were situated.® Mr. Alleman stated that he told Ms. McCole and Defendant where the bathrooms and telephones were located, but then got called away for another tow.41 IMf. Alleman testified that the door to the office was closed and locked before he left John's Mobile, as was the rest of the building, except for the lobby area which remained open to the public.42 Mr. Alleman stated that he never gave Defendant permission to take another car, nor did he give Defendant the keys to any other car.43 He also testified that no car keys were left in the lobby area.44 Both John Alleman and John Cunningham testified about a keyboard, where car keys were hung for cars in the shop.45 This keyboard was kept in the receptionist's office, which was not an area open to the public.46 Each of the keys on the board had a tag that listed the customer's name and the type and color of the car or the year of the car.47 John Cunningham testified that all the interior doors, such as 38 N.T. 21-2; Commonwealth's Exhibits 2 and 2-A. 39 N.T. 24; Commonwealth's Exhibit 2-B. 40 N.T. 27-8, 48-55. 41 N.T. 29-30. 42 N.T. 31-2, 40-1. 43 N.T. 31. 44 N.T. 40. 45 N.T. 33, 56-7. 46 N.T. 54, 58. 47 N.T. 33, 52. 6 the office door, were marked with signs such as "do not enter" or "employees only.''48 John Cunningham also testified that he did not give anyone penrfission to use Sue Shock' s car.49 In addition to the testimony discussed above, John Cunningham also testified about a locked box that was kept in the receptionist's office that was damaged the same weekend Sue Shock's car was stolen? Mr. Cunningham stated that in the bottom drawer of the receptionist's desk, located in the office, a box was kept to house money and inspection stickers.51 On March 22, 1999, Monday morning, when John Cunningham and the receptionist arrived at John's Mobile and noticed that Ms. Shock's car was missing, they also found the change box damaged and the cash and inspection stickers gone.52 John Ctmningham testified that he had been in the office Sunday morning and that the cash and inspection stickers had all been there? The Commonwealth presented testimony from the aforementioned Charles Whitehead,54 and from Sally Worst. Sally Worst was a Pennsylvania state trooper, in the criminal investigation depamnent, who was assigned to this case for a follow-up.55 Trooper Worst arrested Ms. McCole on October 18, 1999, in connection with the theft of Sue Shock's car.56 Soon after, Ms. McCole made an oral and written statement to 48 N.T. 59. 49 N.T. 64. 50 Defendant was charged with Theft By Unlawful Taking of the Inspection Stickers and Cash, but was found not guilty. See N.T. 225. 5~ N.T. 54. 52 N.T. 61. The lock on the box had been pried open. 53 N.T. 62. 54 N.T. See note 26 supra. 55 N.T. 137-38. 56 N.T. 137. Trooper Worst regarding the case.57 Although Ms. McCole's written statement did not mention that Defendant entered any interior doors at John's Mobile Repair Service, Ms. McCole did tell Trooper Worst during oral questioning that Defendant went through a door off the lobby, which led into an area where he got the keys, according to Trooper Worst's testimony.58 Finally, evidence was presented through the testimony of Tonia McCole and Defendant regarding several letters that were written between Ms. McCole and Defendant. One such letter, written by Defendant to Ms. McCole on May 27, 1999, read as follows: We should get married. Then they won't be able to make you testify, because they can't make a wife testify against her husband .... Ton/a, you have got to change your song and dance. You got to say that the keys were in the car and the doors were open .... Ton/a, you have to say the keys were in the car and that you never saw me go into the office. I went to the bathroom? Defendant presented evidence of two additional letters, which he claimed were written by Ms. McCole to him.® A portion of one of those letters read: "Why did you even tell me to blame everything on you? You know damn well that I did it.''61 Another letter, which Defendant claimed Ms. McCole wrote to him, read: When the State Police questioned me, Eddie, I wanted to so badly just tell them the troth, that I took the keys and the car, but I couldn't .... I have to 57 N.T. 98-100, 138-39, 140-41; Commonwealth's Exhibits 5 and 6. 5a N.T. 144-45. Trooper Worst also testified that it is not uncommon for persons to mention something during an oral statement and then forget to write it down. 59 N.T. 94-5; Commonwealth's Exhibits 4, 4-A, and 4-B. Defendant admitted to having written the letter, but claimed that he had previously told Ms. McCole to blame everything on him, so that when he told her to "change her song and dance," Defendant meant for her to say that she was actually responsible for taking the car. See N.T. 160- 64. 60 N.T. 161-65. 6~ N.T. 162-63; Defense Exhibit 1. go to court. No way will I be able to lie and say it was you who took the car.62 Ms. McCole testified that she did not write either letter to Defendant. The jury returned verdicts of guilty to the charges of Criminal Trespass,63 Theft by Unlawful Taking relating to the vehicle,64 Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Burglary,65 Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Trespass,66 and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking of a vehicle.67 Defendant filed an appeal, on July 19, 2000, from the judgment of sentence entered on June 27, 2000. As noted, an issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's verdicts of guilty on the charges of Criminal Trespass, Theft by Unlawful Taking (Vehicle), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Trespass, and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking (Vehicle). DISCUSSION Criminal Trespass. Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(a)(1)(i), it is provided that "[a] person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he: (i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof." The basic element of the crime is an unprivileged entry, which is not limited by any additional requirement of subterfuge. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 276, 561 A.2d 699, 709 (1989). Furthermore, the defendant need not have any intent to commit a crime once inside the 62 N.T. 163-63; Defense Exhibit 2. 63 N.T. 224-25. 64 N.T. 225. 65 N.T. 226. 66 N.T. 226. 67 N.T. 226-27. structure. Id. at 276, 561 A.2d at 709. An occupied structure is def'med as any structure, vehicle, or place adapted for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present. Commonwealth v. Hagan, 539 Pa. 609, 613, 654 A.2d 541, 543 (1995). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that a ladies' room in a country club is a separately occupied structure from the rest of the club, as to which a male intruder could be charged with criminal trespass. Commonwealth v. Tate, 299 Pa. Super. 518, 521, 445 A.2d 1250, 1251 (1982). The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a jury to f'md that Defendant, Edward G. Snyder, was guilty of Criminal Trespass. Tonia McCole testified that she saw Defendant enter the office door at least twice, returning with car keys in his hand. Evidence was presented, through the testimony of John Alleman, that the keys to Sue Shock's car were in the office and were not left in the waiting area, as Defendant claimed. John Cunningham testified as to a damaged locked box that was kept in the receptionist's desk in the office, and missing cash and inspection stickers from that box. The letter written by Defendant to Tonia McCole on May 27, 1999 stated, "Tonia, you have to say the keys were in the car and that you never saw me go into the office," which also supports the jury's finding that Defendant entered the office. The Commonwealth did not have to establish that Defendant forcibly entered the office, but only that he entered the office without permission to do so and that it was a separately occupied portion of the building. Defendant does not suggest that he was authorized to enter the office, no employee of John's Mobile Repair Service gave Defendant permission to enter the office, and John Cunningham testified that all the interior doors at John's Mobile Repair Service were labeled with signs such as "employees only" and "do not enter." John Alleman, Tonia McCole, and Defendant all testified that John Alleman told Defendant and Ms. McCole where the restrooms and telephones were, thus indicating the areas open to the public. Extensive evidence was also presented as to the lay-out of John's Mobile, which established that the office was a separate portion of the larger building. Sufficient evidence was, therefore, presented from which a jury could fred, beyond a reasonable 10 doubt, that Defendant entered into a separately secured portion of the building, the office, without permission to do so. Theft by Unlmvfid Taking (Vehicle). Under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3921(a), it is provided that "[a] person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof." One who exercises unlawful control over movable property of another may be convicted of theft without evidence that he originally misappropriated the property. Commonwealth v. Adams, 479 Pa. 508, 508, 388 A.2d 1046, 1046 (1978). Furthermore, one may "exercise control" over a vehicle without actually operating it. Commonwealth v. Pemberth, 339 Pa. Super 428, 431, 489 A.2d 235, 237 (1985). The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a jury to fmd Defendant guilty of Theft by Unlawful Taking of a vehicle. Tonia McCole testified that neither she nor Defendant had permission to take Ms. Shock's car. Sue Shock, John Alleman, and John Ctmningham also testified that no one gave Defendant or Tonia McCole permission to use the car. Evidence was presented tending to show that Defendant stole the keys for the car, and it was undisputed that Defendant was in Ms. Shock's car the day the car was driven from John's Mobile Repair Service. Sue Shock also testified about a letter she received from Defendant apologizing for his involvement in the theft of her car. Given the testimony presented at trial, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to fred Defendant guilty of Theft by Unlawful Taking of a vehicle. Criminal Conspiracy. The statute on criminal conspiracy provides that "[a] person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime." 18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a). Conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act in ftmherance of the agreement. Commonwealth v. Vining, 744 A.2d 310, 316 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied 2000 Pa. 11 LEXIS 2376 (September 27, 2000). In proof of a conspiracy, direct and positive evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, of a corrupt agreement is not necessary. Commonwealth v. Holman, 237 Pa. Super. 291, 296, 352 A.2d 159, 161 (1975). An agreement may be inferred from the acts of the parties. Id at 296, 352 A.2d at 161. Circumstances which are relevant to the question of the existence of a conspiracy include: (1) the association between the alleged conspirators, (2) knowledge of the commission of the crime, (3) presence at the scene of the crime, and (4) participation in an object of the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Lamb, 309 Pa. Super. 415, 429, 455 A.2d 678, 685 (1983). The required overt act need not be committed by the defendant, but may be committed by a co-conspirator. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 784 (Pa. Super. 1998), appeal denied 739 A.2d 1056 (Pa. 1999). Guilt or innocence of an accused may rest solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Commonwealth v. Hamm, 325 Pa. Super. 401,408, 473 A.2d 128, 132 (1984). A. Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Burglaw_. The burglary statute provides that "[a] person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter." 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3502(a). To sustain a burglary charge, the Commonwealth must prove: (1) entry of a building or occupied structure by Defendant, (2) with contemporaneous intent of Defendant to commit a crime, (3) at the time when premises were not open to the public and Defendant was not privileged to enter. Commonwealth v. Tingle, 275 Pa. Super. 489, 494, 419 A.2d 6, 9 (1980). Specific intent to commit a crime necessary to establish the second element may be found in defendant's words or conduct, or from the attendant circumstances together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. Id at 495, 419 A.2d at 9. The Commonwealth may prove its case by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 495, 419 A.2d at 9. The proof required for the charge of conspiracy to commit burglary is different, however, from the proof required to prove burglary alone, which is noted in the previous section. 12 The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a jury to fred Defendant guilty of a Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Burglary. The conspiracy to commit burglary is complete the moment two parties agree for one of them to enter a secured structure, at a time when it is not open to the public, with the intent to commit a crime, and one such party commits an overt act in furtherance of this agreement. The jury in this case could have inferred from the relationship of the parties, as girlfriend and boyfriend, and from their failure to fred other transportation from John's Mobile Repair Service, that when Defendant approached the office door in Ms. McCole's presence, it was with an understanding that he would enter the office to look for keys or some other item, such as money, that would further their common purpose of returning home. Evidence was presented that the office was not open to the public, that the office door was marked with a sign such as "employees only" or "do not enter," that a locked box inside the office was damaged and cash and inspection stickers were missing, that Defendant entered the office and returned with car keys in his hand, and that he and Ms. McCole completed the enterprise by using the keys to steal a car and flee. The evidence was therefore sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on the charge of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Burglary. B. Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Criminal Trespass. In addition to the law on criminal conspiracy and criminal trespass recited above, it may be noted that a criminal conspiracy to commit trespass does not require proof of actual entry. Commonwealth v. Cowher, 276 Pa. Super. 490, 494, 419 A.2d 564, 566 (1980). To fred Defendant guilty of a criminal conspiracy to commit criminal trespass, the jury needed to fred evidence that he agreed with Tonia McCole to enter the office at a time it was not open to the public, and that one of them committed an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. By the same process of reasoning as applied to the issue of conspiracy to commit burglary, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to fred Defendant guilty of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Criminal Trespass. C. Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking (Vehicle). In view of the law applicable to criminal conspiracy and theft by unlawful taking of a 13 vehicle, discussed above, the jury could have found Defendant, Edward G. Snyder, guilty of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking of a vehicle. It is undisputed that Defendant and Ms. McCole took Sue Shock's car from John's Mobile Repair Service, regardless of whether or not the jury found that Defendant actually drove the car at any time. Considering that both Defendant and Ms. McCole got into Sue Shock's car to leave John's Mobile, and considering the statements made between the parties, regardless of whether the jury believed Defendant's or Ms. McCole's testimony as to what was said, the jury could have reasonably found that Defendant agreed with Ms. McCole to take Sue Shock's car, which neither Defendant nor Ms. McCole had permission to take. Therefore, sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to fred Defendant guilty of Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Theft by Unlawful Taking of a vehicle. Given all the evidence presented at trial, with the Commonwealth entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences, sufficient evidence was presented for the jury to fred Defendant guilty of Criminal Trespass, Theft By Unlawful Taking (Vehicle), Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Burglary, Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Criminal Trespass, and Criminal Conspiracy To Commit Theft By Unlawful Taking (Vehicle). It is therefore believed that the judgment of sentence was properly entered. Michael Ferguson, Esq. Assistant District Attorney Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esq. 3805 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COUR/?T~ ~ JWesley Olff_,~., J. · 14