Summary
The court held that fenced, locked business storage areas—such as an oil refinery tank farm and a bus storage yard—are "places adapted for carrying on business" under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501, and therefore constitute "occupied structures" for purposes of criminal trespass under § 3503(a). The court rejected the trial court's narrow interpretation limiting "carrying on business" to places where transactions occur, and clarified that the Commonwealth may prosecute under either criminal trespass or defiant trespass when the elements of breaking are present. The case also addresses the appealability of orders quashing the return of transcript after a preliminary hearing, treating them as final orders appealable by the Commonwealth.
Holdings
- Yes, fenced enclosures used for storage of business equipment and materials are 'places adapted for carrying on business' and thus 'occupied structures' under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501.
Questions Presented
- Whether fenced, locked storage areas used for business constitute 'occupied structures' under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501, such that entering them can support a charge of criminal trespass.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (15)
- Commonwealth v. Revtai, 516 Pa. 53, 532 A.2d 1 (1987)(cited for proposition that orders dismissing complaints at preliminary hearing stage are interlocutory)
- Commonwealth v. Allem, 367 Pa.Super. 173, 532 A.2d 845 (1987)(cited for same proposition as Revtai)
- Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 331 A.2d 205 (1975)(cited for proposition that orders granting writs of habeas corpus after preliminary hearing are final and appealable)
- Commonwealth v. Wojdak, 502 Pa. 359, 466 A.2d 991 (1983)(cited for standard of proof at preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Cannon, 297 Pa.Super. 106, 443 A.2d 322 (1982)(distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Wooten, 519 Pa. 45, 545 A.2d 876 (1988)(cited for proposition that penal statutes need not be given narrowest meaning)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 386 Pa.Super. 100, 562 A.2d 373 (1989)(cited for same proposition as Wooten)
- Commonwealth v. Mayer, 240 Pa.Super. 181, 362 A.2d 407 (1976)(cited as analogous case where a stored house trailer was a 'building or occupied structure')
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 209 Pa.Super. 399, 228 A.2d 43 (1967)(cited as analogous case where a telephone booth was a 'building')
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 289 Pa.Super. 221, 433 A.2d 36 (1981)(cited for maxim that legislature did not intend absurd result)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.