Com. v. Dooris

• Decision Date: 31 July 1997
• Citation: 548 Pa. 210,696 A.2d 152
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Francis Matthew DOORIS, Jr., Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 152

696 A.2d 152

548 Pa. 210

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Francis Matthew DOORIS, Jr., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Sept. 17, 1996.

Decided July 31, 1997.

No. 12 M.D. Appeal Docket 1996: Appeal from the Order of the: Superior Court entered May 27,: 1994, at No. 00146HBG93, vacating: the judgment of sentence of the: Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming: County, Criminal Division, dated: January 25, 1993, at No. 91-11434.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and NEWMAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

CASTILLE, J., files a dissenting statement in which NEWMAN, J., joins.

CASTILLE, Justice, dissenting.

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is seeking reversal of the Order of the Superior Court which vacated the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. Appellee, Francis Matthew Dooris, Jr., was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of not less than three years nor more than ten years after a jury found him guilty of arson endangering persons ¹ and arson endangering property. ² The Superior Court in a memorandum opinion and order vacated the judgment of sentence and discharged appellee after finding that the circumstantial evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. Specifically, the Superior Court found that the Commonwealth had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire in question was of incendiary origin and that appellee set the fire. I believe that the Superior Court erred in this conclusion in that the court departed from the accepted and usual course of appellate review and rendered a decision that is not in accord with precedent previously established by this Court. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that this appeal was improvidently granted.

The standard of review is well settled when sufficiency of the evidence claims are raised. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner and must give all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth in order to determine if the trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that all of the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 510 Pa. 537, 540, 510 A.2d 1217, 1218 (1986). Moreover, this Court has established that circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to convict a person of a crime. Commonwealth v. Gorby, 527 Pa. 98, 107, 588 A.2d 902, 906 (1991). In testing the sufficiency of the evidence where a conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, we review the circumstantial evidence, not simply alone, but with all the inferences and conclusions that reasonably and logically can be drawn therefrom. Commonwealth v. Rivers, 537 Pa. 394, 403, 644 A.2d 710, 714 (1994).

The Superior Court noted the aforementioned standard of review in its memorandum opinion; however, the court then erroneously proceeded to state that extra caution is to be used in reviewing a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. This Court has never mandated nor prescribed that such extra caution be used where a conviction is based solely upon circumstantial evidence. Conversely, this Court has repeatedly acknowledged that circumstantial evidence can be as reliable and persuasive as eyewitness testimony and may be of sufficient quantity and quality to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Tedford, 523 Pa. 305, 322, 567 A.2d 610, 618 (1989); Commonwealth v. Buehl, 510 Pa. 363, 375, 508 A.2d 1167, 1173 (1986) (citing Commonwealth v. Pronkoskie, 498 Pa. 245, 445 A.2d 1203 (1982); Commonwealth v. Berrios, 495 Pa. 444, 434 A.2d 1173 (1981); Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250, 301 A.2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Cimaszewski, 447 Pa. 141, 288 A.2d 805 (1972)). Of course, whether circumstantial or direct evidence is used at trial, any verdict based wholly on inference and suspicion must be overturned. Pronkoskie, 498 Pa. at 251, 445 A.2d at 1206. Using this proper standard of review, the record establishes the following facts:

Appellee owned and operated a video rental store known as "Video Plus," located within the borough of South Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. ³ Video Plus was located in the end-unit of a single story building that housed other businesses including a radio station. The Video Plus store consisted of a front showroom, a rear storeroom and a restroom located in the rear of the storeroom.

On March 20, 1991, appellee was working alone at his store. As was appellee's usual practice, upon closing his business, he deposited the receipts for the day in a safe located in the restroom and exited the store through the front door. Upon exiting the store at 9:23 p.m., appellee activated the security alarm installed to protect his business. ⁴ One minute later, at 9:24 p.m., a signal was sent from the passive infrared detector, located in the northwest corner of the storeroom, to the main office of Tele-Rad Security indicating a problem existed at Video Plus.

At 9:29 p.m., Officer Lowmiller of the South Williamsport Police Department was dispatched to investigate a possible burglary at Video Plus and, less than a minute later while in route to the store, the officer was informed that someone had called and reported a fire at the same location. ⁵ At 9:31 p.m., Officer Lowmiller arrived at the location and observed heavy smoke pouring from the eaves of the roof with flames coming out of a broken window in the northwest corner of the store. ⁶ Officer Lowmiller then spoke with the person who had reported the fire and was informed that someone was still inside the radio station. The officer then proceeded to the radio station and ordered the disc-jockey on duty to leave the premises immediately. The disc-jockey complied with the demand and vacated the premises. ⁷

The local fire company arrived at the location within eight to ten minutes after receiving the initial fire report. Upon its arrival at the scene, the fire had fully engulfed Video Plus and the flames were venting through the roof, twenty to forty feet into the air. Eventually, the fire was extinguished and no one was injured; however, as a result of the fire, the building and the businesses it housed sustained substantial damage. The fire fighters were able to salvage the safe and part of a penny collection that appellee kept at Video Plus; the rest of the contents of the store were completely destroyed.

The Commonwealth presented the expert testimony of two arson investigators at trial who traced the location of the origin of the fire to the base of the northwest corner of the Video Plus storeroom. The two experts made this conclusion after examining the intensity of the wood charring and the "V pattern" in that area. ⁸ One of the expert fire investigators, Lyle Keeler, who specialized in investigating fires with electrical origins, testified that he examined the entire electrical system of Video Plus and determined that the fire did not result from any electrical system malfunction. He further testified that he took apart and examined all of the electrical equipment located in the storeroom and determined that all the equipment's switches were in the off position and there was no indication that any of the equipment had malfunctioned.

Both expert witnesses testified that the fire was of incendiary origin in that the arson investigators were able to rule out all electrical and accidental causes. ⁹ Moreover, the experts ruled out the possibility that any type of accelerant had been used in setting the fire because of the nature of V pattern ¹⁰ and no traces of an accelerant were detected at the fire scene. Both experts ultimately concluded that the fire was intentionally started in the northwest corner of the storeroom by an open flame since all other possible sources of ignition were ruled out in that particular area. ¹¹

In addition, the Commonwealth presented testimony and evidence that appellee, at the time of the fire, was experiencing serious personal and business financial difficulty. Specifically, the evidence presented established that: (1) appellee was behind on his electric, telephone, and rent bills; (2) appellee and his wife's total income from the business was $6,290 in 1990 and their projected total income for the coming year was a little over $3,000; (3) appellee's sales and purchases of rental tapes substantially decreased throughout the year, compared to the previous year; (4) his business was on a downward trend which would be virtually impossible to reverse; (5) at the time of the fire, appellee's total credit card balances amounted to $22,855.22 and the total of the minimum monthly payments amounted to over $2,100; (6) appellee had been unsuccessful in trying to sell the business; and, (7) appellee's store was insured for $100,000 and further insured for $200,000 for loss of business income.

In order to convict a person of arson, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that there was a fire, (2) that the fire was of incendiary origin, and (3) that defendant was the guilty party. Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 438, 123 A.2d 435, 436 (1956). Moreover, when a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence is reviewed along with all reasonable inferences and conclusions that reasonably and logically can be drawn therefrom. Rivers, 537 Pa. at 403, 644 A.2d at 714.

Here, as to the incendiary nature of the fire, the two expert witnesses testified about the path of the fire and were able to pinpoint the area of origin of the fire. Testimony was presented ruling out all electrical causes for the fire. Moreover, the experts testified as to items stored in the specific area that the fire originated, further ruling out any possible accidental causes....