Summary
This concurring opinion addresses the interpretation of Pennsylvania's witness-or-victim intimidation statute and the enhanced grading provision involving an inducement. Chief Justice Saylor agrees that Commonwealth v. Brachbill incorrectly treated an enhancement criterion as part of the substantive offense, but questions whether overruling Brachbill was necessary in this case because the jury received a statutory-elements instruction and the evidence supported intimidation independently of the inducement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Commonwealth v. Brachbill incorrectly treated an enhancement criterion under Section 4952 as part of the substantive elements defining the core offense.
- Whether an inducement under Section 4952 must itself have an intimidating effect in order to support the enhanced grading provision.
- Whether the Supreme Court should overrule or reconsider Brachbill despite the possibility that doing so was not technically necessary to resolve the present controversy.
Holdings
- The concurrence agrees with the majority that Commonwealth v. Brachbill incorrectly superimposed an enhancement criterion onto the substantive provisions defining the core offense, thereby permitting intimidation to be established solely by the fact of an inducement.
- The concurrence states that inducement and intimidation should be treated as independent elements of the charged felony-three offense rather than requiring that the inducement itself have an intimidating effect.
Key quotations
“I agree with the majority that the Court in Commonwealth v. Brachbill, 520 Pa. 533, 555 A.2d 82 (1989), incorrectly superimposed one of Section 4952’s enhancement criteria upon the substantive provisions defining the core elements of the offense, thereby inappropriately permitting the Commonwealth to establish “intimidation” via the mere fact of an inducement.” (slip op. at 1)
“To my mind, this approach is consistent with the governing statute.” (slip op. at 2)
Factual background
Doughty was charged with intimidation of a witness or victim after offering his wife a pecuniary or other benefit. The trial court instructed the jury that intimidation and inducement were independent elements of the charged felony-three offense. Chief Justice Saylor observed that the record contained sufficient facts from which intimidation could be discerned apart from the inducement, including the defendant's words and tone.
Procedural history
The Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas entered judgment of sentence on May 7, 2013. The Superior Court affirmed that judgment on March 26, 2014, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This document is Chief Justice Saylor's concurring opinion supporting the majority's treatment of Commonwealth v. Brachbill.