Com. v. Kennedy
Decision Date | 31 December 2001 |
Citation | 789 A.2d 731 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. Brooks Thomas KENNEDY, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Jessica E. Becker, Carlisle, for appellant.
Jaime M. Keating, Asst. Dist. Atty., Carlisle, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before: DEL SOLE, P.J., MUSMANNO and HESTER, JJ.
¶ 1 Brooks Thomas Kennedy appeals the judgment of sentence (48 hours to 23 months' imprisonment) for unsworn falsification to authorities claiming the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We reverse.
¶ 2 In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Vesel, 751 A.2d 676, 681-682 (Pa.Super.2000).
¶ 3 The facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the defendant's innocence, but the question of any doubt is for the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. Commonwealth v. Seibert, 424 Pa.Super. 242, 622 A.2d 361, 363 (1993).
¶ 4 The crime of unsworn falsification to authorities is defined, in relevant part, as follows:
¶ 5 The evidence presented at trial indicates that Appellant completed Form SP 4-127 (2-98) (Captioned: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—County of Cumberland— APPLICATION FOR A PENNSYLVANIA LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS), which contained various questions to be answered either "Yes" or "No." As is herein relevant, Appellant responded in the negative to the following:
¶ 6 Before answering the questions, Appellant read the back portion of the application captioned Section 6105(b)1 and Section 6105(c), the latter of which provides in pertinent part:
After Appellant completed the form, Cumberland County Deputy Sheriff Kelly Bear utilized the "Pennsylvania Instant Check System" to verify the information supplied. When this process came back "positive," Deputy Sheriff Bear turned to the "CLEAN" system, which examines state, national and international records for criminal activity.
¶ 7 A search by "CLEAN" showed that Appellant had been convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, which was confirmed by an additional check of Appellant's "rap sheet."2 This resulted in the present charges and Appellant's conviction of violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904.
¶ 8 It is Appellant's position that his response to Question 31 was influenced by the content of Question 29, which directed him to the back of the application before answering whether he had been convicted of any of the thirty-five offenses under Section 6105(b) or Section 6105(c), which prohibits licensure when, inter alia, a person has been convicted of an offense under The Drug Act "punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding two years."
¶ 9 Appellant interpreted subsection (c)(2) of Section 6105 to be applicable to Questions 29 and 31. In other words, because Appellant had not been convicted of anything that carried a term of over two years, he answered no to Question 31. See Footnote 2, supra. Appellant was aware of the consequences of answering the questions falsely and he acknowledged not acting with intent to mislead the public servant reviewing his application. Rather, he asserts he answered the questions and signed the form at the end thereof (pursuant to Section 4904's unsworn falsification to authorities) to the best of his knowledge.
¶ 10 Appellant testified to making a "mistake" by interpreting Question 31 to prohibit possession of a license to carry a firearm to persons convicted of violating The Drug Act, provided the imposition of imprisonment exceeded two years. His actions were the product of "confusion" over when to reference the back of the application in answering the questions.
¶ 11 We read Form SP 4-127 (2-98) to contain internal inconsistencies, which leaves the reader in a quandary when to examine the back of the document in advance of answering questions on the face of the application. For example, three of the first four questions (Nos. 29, 30 and 32) direct the applicant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Interest of J.B.
...found sufficient by the fact-finder, when viewed in its entirety is deemed insufficient as a matter of law. Commonwealth v. Kennedy , 789 A.2d 731, 732 (Pa. Super. 2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Seibert , 424 Pa.Super. 242, 622 A.2d 361, 363 (1993) ("The facts and circumstances established ......
-
Commonwealth v. Baxter, No. 622 WDA 2006
...a new trial." On March 8, 2006, the trial court granted the motion for a new trial citing to this Court's holding in Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 789 A.2d 731 (Pa. Super. 2001). This timely appeal followed.2 ¶ 6 The issue of first impression presented by this appeal is whether a prosecution und......
- Com. v. Baldwin
- Commonwealth of Pa. v. Leggett