Court Opinion

ID: 9965699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 13:10:31.539129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.166227
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania              :
                                          :
                v.                        :   No. 413 C.D. 2021
                                          :   Argued: September 11, 2023
Gary L. Couteret,                         :
                              Appellant   :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                              FILED: May 3, 2024

                Gary L. Couteret appeals two orders of the Court of Common Pleas of
Clearfield County (trial court), convicting him of summary offenses under the Game
and Wildlife Code (Game Code).1 The first order convicted Couteret of “unlawful
taking or possession of game or wildlife” in violation of Section 2307(a) of the Game
Code, 34 Pa. C.S. §2307(a), and sentenced him to pay a fine of $1,500 “for the
benefit of Clearfield County” plus costs of prosecution and “replacement costs” of
$1,666.66 to the Commonwealth. Trial Court Order, 12/7/2020. The second order
convicted Couteret for use of “unlawful devices and methods” in violation of Section
2308(a)(7) of the Game Code, 34 Pa. C.S. §2308(a)(7), and sentenced him to pay a
fine of $250 “for the benefit of Clearfield County” plus costs of prosecution. Trial
Court Order, 12/7/2020. We reverse both orders.
                The Keystone Elk County Alliance is a non-profit organization that
preserves elk in Clearfield and Elk Counties. To raise funds, the Alliance conducts

1
    See 34 Pa. C.S. §§101-2965.
an annual raffle, with the approval of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, for the
issuance of an early hunting license authorizing the kill of a single elk. In 2019,
Richard Prentiss won the raffle, which also entitled him to professional guide
services. Couteret and Kim Rensel, who are affiliated with Elk County Outfitters,
volunteered to provide these services to Prentiss for a period of seven days,
beginning on September 11, 2019.
              On the third day of hunting, September 13, 2019, Rensel “was guiding
Prentiss at different hunting locations.”      Trial Court Op. at 1.      Ben Gnan
accompanied them to film the hunt for potential use in a documentary. After leaving
their first planned location for hunting, Rensel drove Prentiss and Gnan to the second
planned location. As they were driving, “Rensel and Prentiss crossed paths with
Couteret,” who was traveling in a separate vehicle. Id. Couteret stopped his vehicle
on the road and told Rensel and Prentiss (who were still in the vehicle) that “there
were elk in the field around the corner.” Id. Couteret drove away, and Rensel parked
his vehicle. He and Prentiss walked across the road onto a field. As they did, a herd
of elk moved into that field from the woods, followed by a large bull elk. At a point
approximately 10 feet from the edge of the road, Prentiss took several shots at the
bull elk in the distance. The party later determined that the shots had succeeded in
killing the elk.
              On March 10, 2020, Prentiss, Rensel, and Couteret were each
separately cited for their actions on September 13, 2019. Couteret was charged with
unlawful aiding, abetting, taking, concealing, or possessing wild game, 34 Pa. C.S.
§2307(a); and use of a vehicle as an unlawful hunting device, 34 Pa. C.S.
§2308(a)(7). After a hearing before the magisterial district judge, Couteret was
found guilty of both offenses.

                                          2
               Couteret appealed, and the trial court held a de novo trial on September
28, 2020. By order of December 7, 2020, the trial court found Couteret guilty of
two summary offenses, i.e., 34 Pa. C.S. §§2307(a), 2308(a)(7). The trial court
sentenced him to pay total fines in the amount of $1,750, plus costs of prosecution,
and $1,666.66 in replacement costs.
               Couteret appealed to this Court. On appeal,2 he raises three issues for
our consideration, which we combine into two for clarity. First, Couteret argues that
the trial court erred by not dismissing the 34 Pa. C.S. §2307(a) charge because the
citation did not set forth the basic elements of the offense as required by the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, Couteret argues that the trial
court erred in holding the Commonwealth’s evidence established a violation of 34
Pa. C.S. §2308(a)(7). Alternatively, Couteret contends the trial court was required,
and failed, to apply the rule of lenity against the Commonwealth because the “road
hunting” provisions of the Game Code are ambiguous.
               Couteret’s challenges to the trial court’s construction of Section
2307(a) and 2308(a)(7) have been addressed and decided in Commonwealth v.
Prentiss, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024), and
in Commonwealth v. Rensel, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 414 C.D. 2021, filed
May 3, 2024). Separately, we consider Couteret’s challenge to his conviction under
Section 2308(a)(7) based on sufficiency of the evidence.

2
  “Our standard of review when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a conviction for a
summary offense is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable
inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have
found that each element of the [offense] charged was supported by evidence and inferences
sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Austin, 846 A.2d
798, 800 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). In reviewing a question of statutory construction, our scope of
review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo. Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment,
977 A.2d 1132, 1142 (Pa. 2009).
                                                 3
               Couteret argues that the trial court erred in convicting him under
Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code,3 arguing that “[t]ravelling to a predetermined
location to look for game” does not constitute unlawful road hunting. Couteret Brief
at 20. The Commonwealth responds that the hunt “was greatly influenced by the
use of vehicles in pursuit of game animals” and that Couteret was “scouting” and
“stop[ped] to discuss the hunt in the middle of the roadway.” Commonwealth Brief
at 14.
               The trial court did not make specific, or numbered, findings of fact.
Rather, it set forth its findings in narrative form in the initial part of the opinion.
Therein, the trial court found that “Rensel and Prentiss crossed paths with Couteret
as they were driving. Couteret, who was in a separate vehicle, stopped in the
roadway to advise Rensel and Prentiss there were elk around the corner.” Trial Court
Op. at 1. Notably, Couteret did not testify, and no witness offered any testimony or
evidence about Couteret’s purpose in driving his vehicle on September 13, 2019.

3
 Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code states as follows:
       (a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for any
       person to hunt or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt any game or wildlife through
       the use of:
       ....
               (7) A vehicle or conveyance of any kind or its attachment propelled by other
               than manpower. Nothing in this subsection shall pertain to any of the
               following:
                       (i) A motorboat or sailboat if the motor has been completely shut off
                       or sail furled, and the progress thereof has ceased.
                       (ii) A motorized wheelchair if the person has been issued a permit
                       to hunt under section 2923(a.1) (relating to disabled person permits).
34 Pa. C.S. §2308(a)(7) (emphasis added).

                                                 4
              In the analysis section of its opinion, the trial court states that “Couteret
was using his vehicle to search for elk.” Id. at 6. However, the trial court found
only that Couteret crossed paths with Rensel and Prentiss and was in a separate
vehicle. Couteret’s purpose cannot be inferred from that simple factual finding
summarizing, correctly, what the video showed. The trial court cited no evidence to
support its statement that Couteret was searching for elk. Because no such evidence
was presented, it cannot be known whether Couteret was searching for elk, deer, or
buttercups.
              At the hearing, Gnan testified that “the party plan[ned] on finding elk
that day” by “returning to a place they hunted the previous two days.” Notes of
Testimony, 9/28/2020, at 9 (H.T. __); Reproduced Record at 10 (R.R. __). Mark
Gritzer, a state game warden, testified only about the video. Rensel testified that just
before he reached the second planned hunting location, Couteret came up and told
him that “he had heard elk.” N.T. 49; R.R. 20. Prentiss testified that as Rensel was
driving him to a planned hunting location, Couteret came up to their vehicle.
              In sum, Couteret was driving when he heard bugling from elk in the
area and then crossed paths with Rensel and Prentiss. The evidence shows, at most,
that Couteret was lawfully driving on a roadway. As we explained in Rensel, ___
A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 414 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024), driving down the
highway and coming upon game does not violate Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game
Code. The momentary encounter was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
Couteret used his vehicle as a device to hunt game or wildlife.
              For the reasons stated in Prentiss, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415
C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024), we hold that the trial court erred in not dismissing
Couteret’s charge under Section 2307(a) of the Game Code. We also hold, for the

                                            5
reasons stated in Rensel, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 414 C.D. 2021, filed May
3, 2024), that the trial court erred in convicting Couteret under Section 2308(a)(7),
which prohibits the use of a vehicle as a device to pursue or wound game, not as a
means of conveyance.
             Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders of December 7, 2020,
that convicted Couteret of violating Sections 2307(a) and 2308(a)(7) of the Game
Code.

                         _____________________________________________
                         MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                         6
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania         :
                                     :
            v.                       :    No. 413 C.D. 2021
                                     :
Gary L. Couteret,                    :
                        Appellant    :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2024, the two orders of the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County in the above-captioned matter, dated December
7, 2020, are REVERSED.

                        _____________________________________________
                        MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania              :
                                          :
                    v.                    :   No. 413 C.D. 2021
                                          :   Argued: September 11, 2023
Gary L. Couteret,                         :
                          Appellant       :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                        FILED: May 3, 2024

      I concur with respect to the Majority’s reversal of the Clearfield County Court
of Common Pleas’ conviction under Section 2307(a) of the Game and Wildlife Code
(Game Code), 34 Pa.C.S. § 2307(a), as the citation was defective. However, for the
reasons more fully set forth in my concurrence and dissent in Commonwealth v.
Rensel, ___ A.3d ___, ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024, No. 414 C.D. 2021, filed May 3,
2024) (Cohn Jubelirer, P.J., concurring and dissenting), I would uphold Gary L.
Couteret’s conviction under Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code, 34 Pa.C.S. §
2308(a)(7), and must, therefore, respectfully dissent with respect to that holding.

                                       __________________________________________
                                       RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge