Commonwealth v. Downing, 511 Pa. 28

511 A.2d 792 (1986) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 23, 1986

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that Temple University's law library was private property and was not open to the public within the meaning of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(c)(2). Because the defendant's permission to use the library had been revoked and he knowingly remained after being directed to leave, the statutory public-access defense to defiant trespass was unavailable. The court reinstated the judgment of sentence and remanded for consideration of other preserved issues.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Papadakos, J.; Nix, C.J.; Larsen, J.; Flaherty, J.; McDermott, J.; Hutchinson, J.; Zappala, J.
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
June 23, 1986
Procedural posture
The Commonwealth appealed from the Superior Court's reversal of Downing's judgment of sentence and discharge following his conviction for defiant trespass. The Supreme Court granted allocatur to determine whether the Temple University Law Library was open to the public under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(c)(2) and whether that provision supplied a defense.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed the legal interpretation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(c)(2) and whether the evidence supported the defiant-trespass verdict.
Precedential value
Published precedential decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Parties
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael J. Downing
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationplain meaning rule

Practice areas

Pennsylvania criminal lawcriminal trespassstatutory interpretationuniversity property and access

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Temple University Law Library was a place open to members of the public within the meaning of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(c)(2).
  2. Whether 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(c)(2) provided Downing a defense to defiant trespass after the Law School revoked his permission to enter during the examination period.

Holdings

  1. The Temple University Law Library was not open to members of the public because it was private university property maintained primarily for the use of the law-school student body; outsiders entered only as guests subject to the University's permission.
  2. Section 3503(c)(2) was unavailable as a defense because the law library was not open to the public and Downing knowingly entered after his license and privilege had been revoked.

Key quotations

Persons not affiliated with the University or its School of Law have no right to enter and use University facilities, including the law library, unless the University or its Law School grants that privilege or license. (34)
Since the law library is not a place open to the public, § 3503(c)(2) cannot excuse a defiant trespasser's acts where the privilege or license to enter has expired or been revoked. (35)
Reversed and remanded to Superior Court for consideration of all other issues preserved before that court and not yet disposed of. (36)

Factual background

Michael J. Downing, who was not affiliated with Temple University or its Law School, obtained a library card and used the Temple Law Library during normal hours. During the law-school examination period, Temple posted notice restricting access to faculty, staff, students, and persons with written authorization, and a professor told Downing that his pass was invalid during that period. Downing later returned, refused repeated requests to leave, stated that he would not leave unless arrested or physically removed, and was arrested after security intervened.

Procedural history

Downing was convicted of defiant trespass and acquitted of disorderly conduct in Philadelphia Municipal Court. He was again convicted in the Court of Common Pleas and sentenced to one year of probation. The Superior Court reversed and discharged him, concluding that he had a legal right to use the library and could invoke the statutory defense. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of the remaining preserved issues.

Remand instructions

The judgment of sentence was reinstated, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for consideration of all other issues preserved before that court and not yet disposed of.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…