Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 9/8/21 Zak Goldstein 9/8/21

PA Supreme Court: Parent Does Not Commit Endangering Welfare of a Child by Allowing Child to Ride in Uber Without Car Seat

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Howard, holding that a person does not commit the crime of Endangering the Welfare of a Child (“EWOC”) by allowing her child to ride in a ride-share without a car seat. This decision is significant because so many people rely on Ubers, Lyfts, Taxis, and other ride-sharing services. It should be noted that a parent can still be found guilty of EWOC if there are other facts presented (i.e. the parent was aware that the driver had been driving unsafely). However, a defendant cannot be found guilty simply because their child was not in a car seat while riding in a ride-sharing car even if the car later gets into an accident.

Commonwealth v. Howard

The defendant was riding in a taxi with her child. While driving near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the taxi was involved in a three-vehicle accident. Specifically, the taxi driver rear-ended the car in front of her which then hit another vehicle. It should be noted, there was no evidence to suggest that the driver was driving in an unsafe or reckless manner before the accident occurred. At the time of the accident, the defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the child was sitting in the back seat, on the passenger side. There was no car seat in the vehicle and none of the occupants were wearing seatbelts. Thankfully, none of the individuals involved sustained serious injuries.

A Police Officer then arrived on scene. While speaking with the defendant, the defendant told the officer that “she had feared that her daughter would fly from the back seat and hit the windshield.” Based on this conversation and the above-mentioned facts, the officer arrested the defendant. The defendant was later charged with reckless endangerment of another person (“REAP”) and EWOC. The defendant elected to proceed by a bench trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of both charges. The trial court imposed a sentence of one-year probation for the crime of EWOC and no further penalty for the crime of REAP. The defendant then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Opinion

A divided Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed her conviction for the crime of REAP finding that her actions did not rise to the level of criminal recklessness. However, the Superior Court affirmed her conviction for EWOC. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the EWOC statute. In its analysis of the statute it found that a defendant is guilty of EWOC when:

1) he or she is “aware of his or her duty to protect the child; 2) is aware that the child is in circumstances that threaten the child’s physical or psychological welfare; and 3) has either failed to act or has taken actions so lame and meager that such actions cannot reasonably be expected to protect the child’s physical or psychological welfare.”

Based on its review of the statute and the facts of the defendant’s case, the Superior Court found that because the defendant knew the vehicle did not have a car seat and “knowingly failed to fasten her daughter’s seatbelt,” she was consequently guilty of EWOC. Further, the Superior Court found that EWOC does not require that a child be in imminent threat of physical harm, but “only requires proof of circumstances that could threaten the child’s physical or psychological welfare.” Undeterred, the defendant then filed a petition of allowance of appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the defendant’s case. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a parent riding in a taxi (or using a similar ride-sharing service) without a car seat is sufficient to support a conviction for EWOC.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court began its analysis by reviewing the EWOC statute. Based on its analysis of the statute, the Court stated that to convict a defendant of EWOC the Commonwealth must prove that a parent was aware that their conduct endangered the welfare of the child and it was not sufficient to prove that a parent is merely aware of their duty of care to their child. Further, the Court must determine whether the parental conduct at issue “offends the common sense of community and the sense of decency, propriety, and the morality which most people entertain.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the defendant’s actions did not offend “the common sense of community.” In the instant case, there was no evidence that the driver was engaged in unsafe or reckless driving prior to rear ending the other car. Further, the Commonwealth presented no evidence (other than the absence of a car seat) that the defendant’s conduct in allowing her child to drive in a taxi without a car seat endangered the welfare of her child. Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the Motor Vehicle Code and found that the defendant could only have been found guilty of a summary offense if she had actually been driving the vehicle. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court therefore reversed her conviction for the first-degree misdemeanor charge given that the Pennsylvania General Assembly had already deemed this conduct to be a summary offense at worst.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 9/2/21 Zak Goldstein 9/2/21

PA Superior Court: Exposing Genitals in Public Place Sufficient for Indecent Exposure Conviction Even If No One Around

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Rudolf, holding that there is sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of indecent exposure when there is evidence that a defendant exposed his or her genitals in a public place. This decision seems somewhat surprising as the statute seems to require that there at least be a risk that someone else would encounter the person before criminal liability should attach.

Commonwealth v. Rudolf

A Lower Windsor Township Police officer was on patrol in a marked police car. At approximately 4:00 AM, he drove past an area with a large parking lot, boat launch, park, and a children’s playground. The officer saw the defendant standing by himself in the playground wearing a bright yellow sleeveless shirt and no pants. He was able to see the defendant’s genitalia. The officer then got out of his vehicle and began to move his spotlight toward the defendant. The defendant noticed the officer and then ran behind a tree. The officer then began to yell at the defendant. Eventually, after an unknown period of time, the defendant sat down at a picnic table and appeared to be putting on shorts.

The officer then began speaking with the defendant. The defendant told the officer that he was in the park to work out, but the officer did not observe any fitness equipment nearby. However, the officer did notice that the defendant had a giant bottle of lotion with him. The officer then told the defendant to leave the area. However, about a half an hour later the same officer saw the defendant about 600 yards away. The officer again told the defendant to leave the area. Later on, the defendant was arrested and charged with open lewdness and indecent exposure.

The defendant elected to proceed by jury trial. At trial, the above facts were placed into the record. The defendant testified on his behalf at trial. He testified that he drove to the playground to work out. Specifically, he would use “the monkey bars for pull-ups,…sit-ups, and leg raises, and that kind of stuff.” As he began to change his shorts, he noticed a light coming rom a car about a half a mile away. Because he was in a “compromising situation” he hid behind a bush. The defendant also stated that he was not naked the second time he saw the officer, but instead was wearing “pretty skimpy” running shorts. Additionally, the defense called a private detective who photographed the views of the playground at 4:00 AM and testified that it was incredibly dark and difficult to capture anything on film.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for the charges of open lewdness and indecent exposure. The case proceeded immediately to sentencing where the trial court imposed 12 months’ probation for the charge of open lewdness and a concurrent sentence of 24 months’ probation for indecent exposure. The defendant did not file any post-sentence motions. The defendant’s attorney then withdrew from the case. The defendant then filed a pro se notice of appeal. The defendant later hired an attorney to represent him on appeal. The defendant raised two issues on appeal. For purposes of this blog, only the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for indecent exposure will be addressed.

What is Indecent Exposure?

18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127 is the statute that governs the crime of indecent exposure. It states:

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.
(b) Grading.--If the person knows or should have known that any of the persons present are less than 16 years of age, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for indecent exposure. On appeal, the defendant argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden because it did not establish that other persons were present or that he knew or should have known that his conduct was “likely to offend, affront, or alarm.” Specifically, the defendant argued that because where he was changing was “incredibly dark” and there was no one present other than the police officer that he had “no reason to believe that such conduct would likely to offend, affront, or alarm anyone.”

The Superior Court was not persuaded by this argument. The Superior Court reviewed 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127 and found that once the Commonwealth has shown that the act occurs in a public place, then it is not required to show that other people were present or that the actor knew or should have known that their conduct was likely to offend, affront, or alarm. In the instant case, it was undisputed that the defendant was in a public playground. Therefore, because the defendant’s actions took place in a public setting, the Commonwealth did not have to prove that he knew or should have known that his conduct was likely to offend, affront, or alarm. The defendant also did not get relief on his other claim. Consequently, the defendant’s convictions will stand and he will be forced to serve his probation sentence.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 8/24/21 Zak Goldstein 8/24/21

PA Superior Court: Consecutive Probation May Not Be Revoked While Defendant Still on Parole

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Simmons, holding that a trial court may not anticipatorily revoke a defendant’s probation sentence. This decision is a huge win for defendants. As a practical matter, if a defendant receives a jail sentence, they often receive a probation sentence that runs consecutive to their jail sentence. When they are released from prison, they are technically on parole, but have not yet begun serving their probation sentence. Simmons holds that if a defendant violates his or her parole, they cannot also be punished for violating their probation at the same time because they have not yet begun serving the probation sentence. Consequently, the worst-case scenario for a defendant is to receive the balance of their back time for their violation. This is significant because as a practical matter this means a defendant can usually only receive a county sentence for their violation, instead of a state sentence.

Commonwealth v. Simmons

In 2017, the defendant pleaded guilty to firearms not to be carried without a license and carrying firearms on the public streets of Philadelphia. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to a term of six to 23 months in jail, followed by three years’ probation. At some point, the trial court amended his sentence to have the probation sentence run concurrently to this jail sentence. It is unclear when this occurred, but it occurred more than 30 days after his sentencing hearing.

A few months after his sentencing, the defendant was arrested again and charged with firearms not to be carried without a license and possession of a controlled substance. The arrest occurred while the defendant was on parole, but before the term of the probation of his case had begun. On his new case, the defendant pleaded guilty to firearms not to be accrued without a license and possession of a controlled substance. The defendant was sentenced to six to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ probation. As a result of these new convictions, the judge on his original case anticipatorily revoked his probation and sentenced him to a term of two and one-half to five years in prison.

The Defendant’s Appeal

The defendant filed a timely appeal. The defendant argued that the trial court erred when it found that he had violated a condition of his probation because it had not yet begun. In other words, the defendant argued that he could not have violated his probation when his probation had not officially started. Additionally, the defendant argued that the trial court illegally modified his sentence, as the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify his sentence more than 30 days after its imposition.

Initially, the defendant was unsuccessful and the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied his appeal. Undeterred, the defendant filed for an application for re-argument en banc and the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed to rehear his appeal.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the relevant sentencing statutes governing the imposition and revocation of an order of probation. It also reviewed prior appellate decisions concerning these issues. In its analysis, the Superior Court determined that a trial court is permitted to enter an order of probation and that it can impose this order consecutively or concurrently. Additionally, a trial court is permitted to terminate a defendant’s supervision at any time, but it can only revoke an order of probation when there is proof that the defendant violated the specified conditions of his probation. Finally, the Superior Court also found that prior precedent permitted trial courts to anticipatorily revoke a defendant’s probationary sentence.

As a preliminary matter, the Superior Court found that the trial court improperly changed the probation tail on the defendant’s sentence to run concurrently to his incarceration sentence from consecutively. Next, after reviewing the statutes and the relevant case, the Superior Court held that the case law that allowed anticipatory revocations of probation was “incorrect” and that they “contravene[d] the plain language of the relevant statutes.” The Superior Court stated that “under the Sentencing Code, a sentence of total confinement and a consecutive order of probation may not be aggregated and viewed as one.” Therefore, a defendant cannot be found to violate the terms of his probation before his probation begins.

So what does this all mean? The easiest way to explain it is to use the defendant’s case. Remember, on his first case, the defendant received a sentence of six to 23 months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ reporting probation. When the defendant picked up his new case, he was on parole and had not begun his probation sentence. Consequently, because of the Superior Court’s decision, the worst punishment he can now receive is the balance of his back time (i.e. the 23 months minus how much time he has served in jail). In the instant case, because the defendant was illegally sentenced (and because he received a sentence that exceeded his original sentence), he will get a new sentencing hearing. Had he been found in violation once the probation started, he would have been facing the maximum on the charge for which he was on probation. For an F3, that would be up to seven years in state prison.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein — Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and Zak Goldstein

Zak Goldstein 8/12/21 Zak Goldstein 8/12/21

PA Supreme Court: Commonwealth Must Prove Defendant Committed a Sexual Offense for Felony Corruption of Minors Conviction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers, holding that to be convicted of the charge of corruption of minors (as a felony of the third degree), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a sexual offense, as defined by Chapter 31. However, it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to actually charge or secure a conviction for the predicate Chapter 31 offense. Further, if a defendant is charged with a sexual offense and is acquitted of the charge, he or she can still be found guilty of felony corruption of minors. However, as in this defendant’s case, if the trial court specifically instructs the jury that it must find the defendant guilty of the predicate offenses that were actually charged, and the jury acquits the defendant of those charges, then a defendant cannot be found guilty of felony corruption of minors.

Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers

The defendant, who was 20 years old at the time, called the 17-year-old complainant nearly a dozen times. The complainant, who had been friends with the defendant for several years, but had not seen him in weeks, missed his calls because she was sleeping. When she texted him back, the defendant stated that he needed to talk with her in person. The two exchanged several messages before the defendant called the victim twice and told her that he was outside of her house. The complainant greeted him at the end of her driveway before agreeing to take a ride with him on his dirt bike.

The defendant then drove them to some baseball fields located a few blocks from the victim’s house. Once there, the defendant instructed the complainant to leave her phone, explaining he wanted their conversation to “be private and no one to listen to it.” The complainant complied and then they continued to drive to another location along some railroad tracks. The complainant and the defendant proceeded to talk for approximately twenty minutes.

At some point during the conversation, the complainant alleged that the defendant “started to get really touchy.” The complainant responded by telling the defendant that she did not feel that way about him and that she was seeing someone else. Undeterred, the defendant began to touch the complainant’s breasts before undoing part of her bathing suit top from behind. While the complainant attempted to retie the part the defendant had undone, he undid the other part, and removed it entirely. He then tossed it into a nearby bush. Eventually, the defendant picked up the complainant and began to undress her. He then digitally penetrated her and then had vaginal intercourse with her. During this time, the complainant repeatedly told the defendant to stop to which he responded that she “probably liked him.” Afterwards, both the defendant and the complainant got dressed and returned to the baseball fields to collect their phones. The defendant then took the complainant home.

The Criminal Charges

The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with rape, sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, and felony corruption of minors. It should be noted that the crime of corruption of minors has multiple subsections, one that is graded as a felony, while the other is graded as a misdemeanor. The case then proceeded to a two-day jury trial. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court charged the jury on the sexual offenses and the corruption of minors charge. In regards to the jury instructions for the corruption of minors charge, the judge gave a clarifying instruction: “whoever being of the age of 18 and upwards by any course of conduct in violation of Chapter 31, relating to the other sexual offenses being rape, sexual assault, indecent , corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any minor of less than 18 years of age…commits a felony of the third degree.”

During the jury’s deliberations, they returned with questions concerning the corruption of minors charge. The court stated “I don’t think it’s the age that is the sticking point here. I think it is the course of conduct in violation…relating to sexual offenses.” Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for the corruption of minors charge and not guilty for the sex offenses. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to one to two years’ incarceration and a consecutive three years’ probation tail. Additionally, he had to register as a sex offender for fifteen years. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him on the felony corruption of minors charge because he was acquitted of the underlying sexual offenses.

The Superior Court’s Decision

In a divided opinion, the Superior Court remanded the defendant’s case for re-sentencing. The majority concluded that the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element of the felony corruption of minors charge because he had been acquitted of the actual sexual offenses. However, the Superior Court did find that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the misdemeanor corruption of minors charge. The Commonwealth then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to determine whether the law requires that a defendant be found guilty of a sex offense to sustain a conviction for felony corruption of minors. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. In making its decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the corruption of minors statute. Based on this review, the Court held that “the Superior Court properly determined the language ‘in violation of Chapter 31’ is an essential element of a felony corruption of minors offense. Notably , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the Commonwealth is not required to formally charge or secure a conviction for a predicate Chapter 31 offense to convict a defendant of the felony corruption of minors offense.

However, this was not the end of the court’s analysis. In the defendant’s case, the judge specifically instructed the jury that it was required to find that the defendant committed one of the predicate offenses to convict him of pertaining to the corruption of minors charge. As such, because the jury acquitted the defendant on the sex offenses, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the defendant’s conviction for the felony corruption of minors charge could not stand because of the instructions that were given to the jury. Therefore, the defendant will get a new sentencing hearing and his conviction for the felony corruption of minors charge will be vacated.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta