Commonwealth v. Adams
Docket Number | 1199 WDA 2022,J-S22011-23 |
Decision Date | 25 August 2023 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GEORGE RANDALL ADAMS Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Appellant George Randall Adams, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered September 6, 2022, as made final by the denial of his post-sentence motion on October 11, 2022. We affirm.
On June 15, 2022, Appellant was charged via an amended criminal information with four counts of arson; two counts of aggravated assault; risking catastrophe; criminal mischief and recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"). The charges related to a fire set in Appellant's home along East Lake Road in Erie, Pennsylvania on June 12, 2021. Appellant's jury trial commenced June 21, 2022. The jury ultimately found Appellant not guilty of aggravated assault, but guilty of arson - danger of death or bodily injury; arson - intent to destroy unoccupied building, two counts of arson - bodily injury; risking catastrophe; criminal mischief; and REAP.[1] On September 6, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to "an aggregate period of 84 to 168 month[s'] incarceration[,] followed by one year of reentry supervision and restitution of $86,849.34." Trial Court Opinion, 11/1/21, at 1. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion on September 12, 2022, which the trial court denied on October 11, 2022. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
Appellant's Brief at 8 (superfluous capitalization omitted).
Appellant's first issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for risking catastrophe. Appellant's Brief at 27-33.
Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1014-1015 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted).
Section 3302 of the Crimes Code provides in relevant part:
Our Supreme Court previously distinguished the two sections of this statute as follows:
Section 3302 attempts to meet two separate and distinct societal harms. In paragraph (a) it purports to punish for the damage caused by the mishandling of certain enumerated highly dangerous forces or substances. Paragraph (b) addresses the exposure to harm created by the misuse of these forces or substances.
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 364 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1976) (emphasis and footnotes omitted). Importantly, Commonwealth v. Scatena, 498 A.2d 1314, 1317 (Pa. 1985).
Herein, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for risking catastrophe. Appellant's Brief at 27. Appellant points out that the fire only involved his home and claims that the Commonwealth did not present testimony or evidence indicating "the circumstances of this fire created a risk of extraordinary disaster, widespread injury and damage, or calamity." Id. at 26-27. We disagree.
In contrast to Appellant's claims, the Commonwealth presented testimony and evidence demonstrating the severity of the fire, as well as the chaotic scene that ensued in response. Indeed, the following exchange occurred during the direct examination of Appellant's neighbor, John Knox:
N.T. Trial, 6/21/22, at 88. Another neighbor, Kerry Harris, echoed Knox's description of the scene, stating that the fire looked like a "flamethrower" because it was "blowing . . . straightforward out of the side of the home." Id. N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 64. Harris also testified that "big burst[s] of flames [were] coming out of the [house's] window . . . the likes [of which he had] never seen." Id. at 70. In addition, both Knox and Harris explained that, in disregard of their own safety, they helped Appellant escape from the second-floor of the house after they saw him pleading for help through the flame-engulfed window. See N.T Trial, 6/21/22, at 86 ( ); see also id. N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 64 ( ). Moreover, the Commonwealth presented testimony demonstrating that two firefighters, Corey Delio and David Nye, sustained injuries due to the fire, requiring hospitalization. Id. at 47; see also N.T. Trial, 6/22/22 at 14. Finally, Appellant's next-door neighbor, Stacy Sharples, testified that, as a result of the fire, "three windows on the west side of [her] house. . . were all damaged by the heat," totaling $10,779.38. N.T. Trial, 6/21/22 at 64-65. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant's conviction for risking catastrophe.
In his second appellate issue, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish that the fire was of incendiary origin and, as such, the corpus delicti of arson by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant's Brief at 35. Thus, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of Appellant's text messages during trial, wherein he made the following statement to his wife: "answer me or after I [am] done I [am] just going to torch the fucking house." N.T. Trial, 6/22/22, at 37; see also Appellant's Brief at 35. We disagree.
This Court previously explained:
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
The term corpus delicti is Latin for "body of the crime." Commonwealth v. Zugay, 745 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial