Opinion ID: 2385352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Davis Transaction

Text: In December of 1981 Eva Davis was experiencing a problem with her backyard patio drain. Raw sewage was backing up out of the drain onto the patio. She called a plumber, who could not unclog the drain. She then called Vic Snyder, Inc., which sent appellee Michael Marino to assess the problem. Marino told Howard Davis, Eva Davis's son, that a new sewer line from the house to the sewer main was needed. Marino paced off the distance from the house to the street, and determined that fifty feet of cast iron sewer pipe would be needed to complete the job. Marino and Howard then executed a contract for the work to be done for $1500. With a backhoe, several workmen attempted to locate the Davises' sewer line. After searching for two or three hours, they finally struck the line, which they discovered did not run fifty feet to the sewer main, but instead ran only two or three feet to the neighbor's property line where it connected with a common pipe leading to the sewer main. Consequently, repairing the Davises' pipe required only two to three feet of pipe rather than the fifty feet called for in the contract. Anthony Tomczak, a plumber on the job, called Vic Snyder, Inc., to inform the office that the contract could not be performed as specified. Marino was sent back to the job site. Upon arriving and being apprised of the situation, Marino told Tomczak that he (Marino) would have to talk to Snyder, and left to make a phone call. When Marino returned he told Tomczak to connect the Davises' line to the common pipe, but not to tell the Davises about the changed circumstances. After examining the area of excavation, Howard Davis determined that fifty feet of pipe had not been laid. He later confronted Marino with his discovery and requested a reduction in the contract price. Marino refused to lower the price, justifying his refusal by declaring that labor and equipment costs accounted for most of the contract price. The district justice found prima facie cases of theft by deception, deceptive business practices, and conspiracy against Marino and the corporation, but dismissed charges against Vic Snyder. Before us is the propriety of the trial court's order overturning the finding of a prima facie case against Marino and the corporation. With regard to the charges of theft by deception and deceptive business practices against Marino, we are constrained to disagree with the court's conclusion that a prima facie case was not shown. Theft by deception is defined at 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a): (a) Offense defined.  A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally obtains or withholds property of another by deception. A person deceives if he intentionally: (1) creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a person's intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he did not subsequently perform the promise; (2) prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction; or (3) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced . . . . The statute defining deceptive business practices states, in pertinent part: (a) Offense defined.  A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, in the course of business, he: . . . . (2) sells, offers or exposes for sale, or delivers less than the represented quantity of any commodity or service; . . . . (6) makes a false or misleading written statement for the purpose of obtaining property or credit . . . . Id. § 4107. It is true, as the trial court noted, that before excavation began Marino was in no better position than the Davises to know that their sewer line did not run all the way to the street. Thus, Marino is not chargeable with intentional deception for originally contracting with the Davises to lay fifty feet of pipe. However, there is ample evidence that once Marino became aware that the job required only two to three feet of pipe rather than fifty, he actively tried to conceal this information from the Davises. Thus, he instructed Tomczak to go ahead with the work without notifying the Davises of the changed specifications. Only after Howard Davis, acting on his own information, requested a reduction in the contract price due to the discrepancy between the work contracted for and that completed did Marino admit to using less pipe than the contract specified. Only then did Marino attempt to justify his earlier failure to inform the Davises of the changed conditions, by maintaining that labor and equipment costs accounted for the bulk of the contract price anyhow. The trial court placed great reliance on the factual accuracy of Marino's belated representations to the Davises. Thus, the court accepted as fact that labor and equipment costs were the major components of the contract price, and the cost of the pipe but a minimal component. We question the court's reliance on these representations, as there is no substantial evidence in the record that would allow the court with any precision to compare the costs of pipe, labor, and equipment used on the Davis job. Moreover, it stands to reason that had the workmen had to install fifty feet of pipe rather than three, the task would have consumed a proportionately greater amount of time, labor, and equipment. In our view, Marino's attempt to conceal the changed conditions from the Davises bespeaks, at least on prima facie consideration, the dishonesty and deceitful intent necessary to support a conviction for theft by deception. See Commonwealth v. Schomaker, 501 Pa. 404, 461 A.2d 1220 (1983); Commonwealth v. Posavek, 278 Pa.Super. 265, 420 A.2d 532 (1980). Concealment of an act, which, owing to the circumstances, may or may not be criminal, has always been regarded as evidence that the act was criminal. Buckley v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 113 Wash. 13, 26, 192 P. 924, 929 (1920). Moreover, Marino's attempt at concealment was precipitated when plumber Tomczak halted work to inform headquarters that the contract could not be performed as specified. The circumstances surrounding the attempted deception belie a finding that the difference between the job done and the job contracted for was inconsequential. The record on the contrary supports an inference that Marino augmented the payment received from the Davises by falsely representing to them that they had gotten work of equal value to that contemplated in the contract. We hold the evidence sufficient to show prima facie that Marino committed theft by deception by intentionally fostering a false impression that the work done by his company was the same in extent or value as that contracted for. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922(a)(1)-(3). We also find sufficient prima facie evidence to show that Marino engaged in deceptive business practices by delivering less than the bargained-for quantity of goods or services to the Davises, and by representing in writing that the greater quantity had been provided. See id. § 4107(a)(2), (6). However, we agree with the trial court that there was not enough evidence to link Vic Snyder, Incorporated to criminal activity in the Davis transaction, nor to link Marino with an alleged conspiracy with the corporation. The Commonwealth's evidence against the corporation, and against Marino on the conspiracy count, consists of the unadorned testimony that Marino telephoned Vic Snyder before acting in regard to the Davis matter. The Commonwealth would have us infer that because Vic Snyder was intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of Vic Snyder, Inc., he must have directed, or at least known about, the deception practiced upon the Davises. The Commonwealth concludes that the corporation may be held vicariously liable for the part of Snyder, its president, in the Davis affair. See id. § 307(a)(3). Suffice it to say that the Commonwealth's evidence implicating Snyder in the Davis transaction rises barely above the level of innuendo, and falls well below the level necessary to prove a prima facie case. Cf. Commonwealth v. Wojdak, 502 Pa. 359, 466 A.2d 991 (1983); Commonwealth v. Daubner, 288 Pa.Super. 47, 431 A.2d 280 (1981). Therefore, on the Davis matter, we uphold the grants of habeas corpus to the corporation and to Marino on the conspiracy count.