Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that it had granted review improvidently because the sufficiency challenge depended on the unestablished premise that Dominic Burno was a legal tenant of the property. Justice Wecht’s concurring statement discusses the distinction between factual findings and legal conclusions concerning an oral lease and cautions against using criminal trespass prosecutions to circumvent the Landlord and Tenant Act’s eviction protections.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should decide whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Burno of criminal trespass when the question assumed that Burno was a tenant who had not been evicted under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951.
- Whether the disputed facts concerning formation and scope of an alleged oral lease could be resolved in Burno's favor on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence appeal.
Holdings
- The Court should not issue an opinion on the tenancy-dependent criminal-trespass question because the sufficiency standard requires disputed facts to be construed in favor of the Commonwealth, making Burno's tenancy an unestablished premise and any ruling hypothetical or advisory.
- The Court did not decide whether Burno was a tenant because the factual record permitted competing findings regarding the parties' intent, offer, acceptance, consideration, and contractual relationship.
Key quotations
“These discrepancies necessarily render any legal opinion we issue on a question that assumes Burno’s legal tenancy provisional and advisory.” ([J-39-2018] - 6)
“Consequently, I agree with my fellow Justices that we granted review improvidently, because the question we sought to consider depends upon a premise that our standard of review precludes us from accepting as true, rendering any putative decision hypothetical at best.” ([J-39-2018] - 6)
“If criminal trespass is allowed to displace the LTA in close cases, it signals to landlords and law enforcement authorities that resort to the Crimes Code presents a ready alternative to engaging the LTA’s more laborious, time-consuming process, with potentially injurious consequences for tenants who are legally entitled to the LTA’s protections.” ([J-39-2018] - 8)
Factual background
Dominic Burno lived in a residence owned by Donna Rayson-Hutchinson pursuant to an arrangement negotiated primarily between Hutchinson and Burno's girlfriend, Brenda Hoffman. The evidence supported competing inferences: it could support a finding that Burno was included within an oral lease, but it also supported a finding that only Hoffman contracted with Hutchinson and that Burno had no independent license or privilege to remain. After Hoffman and others left, Hutchinson told Burno to leave, and the evidence supported a finding that he knew he lacked permission to remain.
Procedural history
Burno was convicted of criminal trespass in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas and sentenced on August 26, 2015. The Superior Court affirmed on March 3, 2017. The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal at No. 47 MAP 2017, heard argument on May 17, 2018, and determined that the appeal should not be decided on the tenancy premise presented.