Title: Commonwealth v. Hackenberger (Dissenting Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-67-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. BRADLEY D. HACKENBERGER, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 164 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court Dated March 26, 2002, entered at 670 MDA 2001, Affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County Dated November 13, 2000, at Criminal No. 86 of 2000 795 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super 2002) ARGUED: May 14, 2003 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE Decided: November 19, 2003 I respectfully dissent. Because the grounds for my disagreement with the Majority have been aptly stated in the learned concurring and dissenting opinion by President Judge Joseph A. Del Sole of the Superior Court below, I adopt that opinion as the basis for my view: I read the provision in question to proscribe the use of a weapon where its intended purpose is directed toward harming an individual, not an animal. No matter how much empathy one may have for an animal killed for no justifiable reason, I remain of the view that this provision was enacted to penalize someone for possessing or utilizing a deadly weapon intended to do harm to a person. There was no evidence presented in this case that any individual was placed at risk due to Appellant’s conduct. Because I believe the objective of the enhancement provision is to punish wrongs against [J-67-2003] humanity, and not nature or animals, I would remand this matter for resentencing without application of the deadly weapon enhancement. Commonwealth v. Hackenberger, 795 A.2d 1040, 1048 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Del Sole, P.J., concurring and dissenting). Mr. Chief Justice Cappy joins this dissenting opinion.