Summary
An active bench warrant renders a person a "fugitive from justice" under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, prohibiting firearm possession. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a stipulation of an active bench warrant issued in a criminal case is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for persons not to possess firearms, rejecting arguments that "fugitive from justice" requires active flight or fleeing the jurisdiction. The court reasoned that evasion of law enforcement through failure to appear, as evidenced by a bench warrant, satisfies the statutory definition, and the General Assembly's subsequent amendments excluding summary traffic offenses from the provision further supports this interpretation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Smith was a 'fugitive from justice' under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(1) based on the existence of an active bench warrant.
Holdings
- An active bench warrant issued in a criminal case renders a person a 'fugitive from justice' for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(c)(1), and the stipulation to the bench warrant provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Key quotations
“Black's Law Dictionary defines fugitive as: (1) Someone who flees or escapes; a refugee. (2) A criminal suspect or a witness in a criminal case who flees, evades, or escapes arrest, prosecution, imprisonment, service of process, or the giving of testimony, esp. by fleeing the jurisdiction or hiding.” (at 12)
“Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines 'fugitive' as: (1) a person who flees or tries to escape: such as (a) a person who flees a country or location to escape danger (such as war) or persecution : REFUGEE (b) a person (such as a suspect, witness or defendant) involved in a criminal case who tries to elude law enforcement especially by fleeing the jurisdiction — called also fugitive from justice” (at 12)
“There's also been a stipulation by and between counsel that at the time of this offense on April 21st of 2014, [appellant] Brahim Smith, had an active bench warrant, which was issued on April 3 rd of 2014 under CP-51-CR-0003923-2011. That bench warrant was lifted on May 1st of 2014, which would make him ineligible for -- a prohibited person from carrying a firearm under 6105 graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree.” (at 4)
“we hold appellant was a 'fugitive from justice' for purposes of Section 6105(c)(1) of the UFA and the Superior Court did not err in affirming the judgment of sentence.” (at 14-15)
Factual background
On April 21, 2014, police responded to a crime in progress and found Brahim Smith sitting in a minivan matching the suspect description. They observed a firearm in an open cardboard box near him. Smith was arrested and charged with firearms offenses. The parties stipulated that at the time of the incident, Smith was subject to an active bench warrant issued on April 3, 2014, under a criminal docket. The bench warrant was lifted on May 1, 2014.
Procedural history
Smith was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas after a jury trial on one count of firearms not to be carried without a license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106) and a bench trial on persons not to possess firearms (18 Pa.C.S. §6105). The Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Smith was a 'fugitive from justice' under §6105(c)(1).