Court Opinion

ID: 9965698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 13:10:30.916418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.136303
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania              :
                                          :
                v.                        :   No. 414 C.D. 2021
                                          :   Argued: September 11, 2023
Kim A. Rensel,                            :
                              Appellant   :

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

OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                              FILED: May 3, 2024

                Kim A. Rensel appeals three 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 Rensel of “shooting on
or across highways” in violation of Section 2504(a) of the Game Code, 34 Pa. C.S.
§2504(a), and sentenced him to pay a fine of $150 “for the benefit of Clearfield
County” plus costs of prosecution. Trial Court Order, 12/7/2020. The second order
convicted Rensel 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 third order convicted Rensel of 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. For the reasons

1
    See 34 Pa. C.S. §§101-2965.
that follow, we reverse the trial court’s orders that convicted Rensel of violating
Sections 2307(a) and 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code. We affirm the trial court’s order
that convicted Rensel of violating Section 2504(a) of the Game Code and remand
the matter to the trial court to consider the appropriate sentence.

                                    Background
             The Keystone Elk County Alliance is a non-profit organization that
preserves elk in Clearfield and Elk Counties. To raise funds, the Alliance conducts
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. Rensel and Gary Couteret, 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. The trial court found that as they were driving, “Rensel and
Prentiss crossed paths with Couteret,” who was traveling in a separate vehicle. Id.
The trial court also found that 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 on the
roadside. 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

                                           2
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. In three citations, Rensel
was charged with shooting on or across highways, 34 Pa. C.S. §2504(a); 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, Rensel was found guilty of all three
offenses.
              Rensel appealed, and the trial court held a de novo trial on September
28, 2020.2 On December 7, 2020, the trial court found Rensel guilty of three
summary offenses, i.e., 34 Pa. C.S. §§2307(a), 2308(a)(7), 2504(a). The trial court
sentenced Rensel to pay fines of $1,900, plus costs of prosecution and “replacement
costs” of $1,666.66 to the Commonwealth. Trial Court Orders, 12/7/2020.
              With regard to the charge of hunting by “unlawful devices and
methods,” the trial court considered precedent under the current Game Code and its
predecessor statute. In Commonwealth v. Beeren, 68 Pa. D. & C. 2d 93 (1973), for
example, a defendant was found guilty of hunting by unlawful device because he
used his vehicle to look for game. In Commonwealth v. Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th 240
(1989), the defendant, who happened to spot a deer while traveling on a highway,
was acquitted of the crime of hunting by unlawful device after he stopped and shot
the deer. In Bonham v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 503 A.2d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1985), this Court upheld the Game Commission’s revocation of a hunting license for

2
 The evidence presented at the trial is more fully summarized in Commonwealth v. Prentiss,
____A.3d _____ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024).
                                            3
one year on the basis of the licensee’s conviction for using a vehicle as a device to
hunt groundhogs.3         The trial court reasoned that the actions of Rensel fell
“somewhere in between” the facts of the three cases. Trial Court Op. at 6. In its
analysis, the trial court explained that, unlike Bonham, Couteret “was using his
vehicle to search for elk, and when he found some, he stopped in the roadway to tell
Prentiss and Rensel.” Trial Court Op. at 6. Although Rensel testified that he planned
to park at that spot before encountering Couteret, the trial court noted that two days
earlier, the party had parked the vehicle at the property owner’s cabin, not on the
highway next to the field. Unlike the defendant in Cook, the hunting party did not
walk the required distance from the highway. The trial court opined that the facts of
this case were “most analogous” to Beeren. Trial Court Op. at 7.
               Rensel appealed to this Court.
                                             Appeal
               On appeal,4 Rensel raises three issues for our consideration, which we
combine into two for clarity. First, Rensel 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

3
   Bonham, 503 A.2d at 78, involved an appeal of the Game Commission’s revocation of a
licensee’s hunting license under Section 315(3) of the Game Law of 1937, Act of June 3, 1937,
P.L. 1225, as amended, formerly 34 P.S. §1311.315(3), repealed by the Act of July 8, 1986, P.L.
442, for his conviction for shooting an animal “from an automobile.” This Court did not, and
could not, examine the merits of the conviction under Section 704 of the Game Law of 1937,
formerly 34 P.S. §1311.704. In any case, Bonham involved shooting “from an automobile,” which
did not occur here.
4
  “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).
                                                 4
basic elements of the offense as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Second, Rensel argues that the trial court erred in holding that the
Commonwealth’s evidence was sufficient to convict Rensel of the charges filed
under Sections 2308(a)(7) and 2504(a) of the Game Code. Alternatively, Rensel
contends the trial court was required, and failed, to apply the rule of lenity against
the Commonwealth because the “road hunting” provisions in the Game Code are
unclear, as acknowledged by the trial court.
             Rensel’s challenges to the trial court’s construction of Sections 2307(a)
and 2504(a) have been addressed and decided in Commonwealth v. Prentiss, ___
A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024). Herein, we consider
Rensel’s challenge to the trial court’s construction of Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game
Code.    Separately, we consider whether the Commonwealth’s evidence was
sufficient to prove Rensel’s violation of Section 2504(a) of the Game Code.
                       Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code
             Rensel argues that the trial court erred in convicting him for the use of
“unlawful devices and methods” to hunt under Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game
Code. Rensel contends that he did not use his vehicle as a device or method to seek
or pursue game; rather, he drove to a pre-planned location to look for game on foot.
Rensel contends that the case law precedent does not support his conviction.
             We begin with the statute. Section 2308 of the Game Code, entitled
“Unlawful devices and methods,” sets forth a list of prohibited hunting devices.
Section 2308(a)(7) states, in relevant part, 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:
                    (1) An automatic firearm or similar device.

                                           5
                 (2) A semiautomatic rifle or pistol, except as set forth in
                 subsection (b.1).
                 (3) (Reserved).
                 (4) A semiautomatic shotgun or magazine shotgun for
                 hunting or taking small game, furbearers, turkey or
                 unprotected birds unless the shotgun is plugged to a two-
                 shell capacity in the magazine.
                 (5) Deleted by 2016, Nov. 21, P.L. 1317, No. 168, §1,
                 effective Jan. 20, 2017.
                 (6) Any recorded call or sound or recorded or
                 electronically amplified imitation of a call or sound of any
                 description or any other call or sound or imitation of calls
                 or sounds which are prohibited by regulations of the
                 commission. The commission shall be authorized, by
                 resolution, to adopt rules and regulations authorizing the
                 limited use of recorded calls or sounds or recorded or
                 electronically amplified imitation of calls or sounds when
                 such use is necessary in the commission’s judgment to
                 protect the public health and safety or to preserve that
                 species or any other endangered by it.
                 (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). The Game Code defines “hunt” as
follows:
           “Hunt” or “hunting.” Any act or furtherance of the taking or
           killing of any game or wildlife, or any part or product thereof,
           and includes, but is not limited to, chasing, tracking, calling,
           pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at, including shooting

                                        6
            at a game or wildlife facsimile, or wounding with any weapon or
            implement, or using any personal property, including dogs, or the
            property of others, of any nature, in furtherance of any of these
            purposes, or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person
            in that purpose.

34 Pa. C.S. §102 (emphasis added).           This broad definition of hunting is
complemented by Section 2301, which defines “prima facie evidence of hunting” as
follows:
            (a) General rule.--For the purpose of this title, any one of the
            following acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of hunting:
                   (1) Possession of any firearm, bow and arrow, raptor, trap
                   or other device of any description usable for the purpose
                   of hunting or taking game or wildlife.
                   (2) Possession of the carcass or any part or parts of any
                   game or wildlife.
                   (3) Pursuing game or wildlife in any manner prohibited by
                   this title or commission regulation.

34 Pa. C.S. §2301(a) (emphasis added).
            In Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th 240, the defendant spotted deer while
traveling on a public road to rendezvous with a hunting companion. He stopped,
exited his vehicle, walked into the field a legal distance from the public road, and
took the deer. Because the defendant did not use his vehicle to pursue or take the
game, the court acquitted the defendant on the charge for violation of Section
2308(a)(7) of the Game Code. In doing so, the court rejected the Commonwealth’s
contention that “one traversing the public highways during deer season and intent
upon hunting who is otherwise legally complying with the act is prohibited from
stopping the vehicle and shooting game observed in plain view while traveling the
highway.” Id. at 242. The court explained as follows:

                                         7
              There is no language or fair implication thereof under this statute
              that prohibits an otherwise legal hunter from exiting his vehicle
              to take game observed in plain view. The prohibition is “use of”
              a vehicle to take the game of wildlife, not a prohibition against
              traveling on a public road in a motor vehicle.
              The intent of the legislature in our opinion was to prohibit the
              use of a vehicle to pursue game when the vehicle is compelled to
              leave the public way, thereby seeking out the game, and the
              taking thereof by an illegal method.

Id. at 243 (emphasis added). Stated otherwise, a violation of Section 2308(a)(7) of
the Game Code requires more than traveling on a public way with the intention to
shoot game, should any be spotted.
              Rensel contends that his actions on September 13, 2019, align with the
facts in Cook. His vehicle never left the public highway. Rather, he drove to a pre-
determined hunting location; parked; walked across the road; and was “lucky enough
to almost immediately find a trophy elk worth taking.” Rensel Brief at 23.
              The Commonwealth responds that “some form of hunting from
vehicles” occurred in the instant case because Rensel was “driving around” when he
met Couteret, who indicated to the group that elk were nearby. Commonwealth
Brief at 12-13. In the Commonwealth’s view, the fact that the hunting locations
were pre-planned is irrelevant. The Commonwealth argues that because Rensel and
his group “received information, through the use of a vehicle, of where a game
animal was located,” Rensel violated Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code. Id. at
14. The Commonwealth urges this Court to adopt the analysis of Beeren, 68 Pa. D.
& C. 2d 93, where the defendant was convicted for unlawful use of a vehicle to hunt
under Section 704 of the Game Law of 1937, formerly 34 P.S. §1311.704.5

5
 The Game Law of 1937 was repealed and reenacted in the Game Code, Act of July 8, 1986, P.L.
442, 34 Pa. C.S. §§101-2965.
                                             8
               The offense of unlawful use of vehicle was first established in the Game
Law of 1937. Section 704, entitled “Unlawful Methods of Hunting,” listed both
unlawful weapons and methods of hunting. Subsection (a), entitled “Unlawful
Methods and Devices,” stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
               Except as otherwise provided, it is unlawful to hunt for, catch,
               take, kill, or wound, or attempt to catch, take, kill or wound any
               wild bird or wild animal of any kind through the use of (a) what
               is commonly known as an automatic gun or an automatic firearm
               of any kind; (b) or a magazine shotgun to hunt for any bird or
               animal, other than big game, which contains more than three
               shells at one time in the magazine and chamber combined, or a
               swivel gun or an air-rifle, or the apparatus known as a silencer;
               (c) or from an automobile or vehicle or boat or craft of any kind,
               propelled by any mechanical power[.]

Section 704(a) of the Game Law of 1937, formerly 34 P.S. §1311.704(a)(c)
(emphasis added).6 Because the Game Law of 1937 did not define “hunt,” the court
in Beeren relied on the dictionary definitions of hunting as “[t]he act of pursuing and
taking wild animals; the chase[,]” or “to search a place thoroughly, to scour an area
in pursuit of game.” Beeren, 68 Pa. D. & C. 2d at 96 (citations omitted). Because
the defendant used a vehicle to search for game, the Beeren court found that the
defendant violated Section 704(a)(c) of the Game Law of 1937.
               In the instant case, the trial court opined that the facts were “most
analogous” to Beeren. Trial Court Op. at 7. Beeren, however, interpreted a statute
that no longer exists, an important point neither considered nor addressed by the trial
court. Further, the facts in Beeren are distinguishable from the instant appeal. In
his search for game, the defendant in Beeren drove erratically, sometimes speeding

6
  Section 704(a) was a single paragraph with subsections denoted by letters, i.e., “(a)” through
“(f).” Beeren was convicted of violating Section 704(a)(c), but the Beeren court termed it Section
704(c). In actuality, Section 704(c) made it unlawful to kill big game in water.
                                                9
up and sometimes slowing down and quickly stopping. No such evidence exists
here. To the contrary, the video showed that Rensel’s vehicle moved at a stately
pace. The trial court erred in relying on Beeren because it is factually and legally
distinguishable.
              The Game Law of 1937 made it illegal to “attempt to catch, take, kill
or wound any wild bird or wild animal of any kind through the use of” certain types
of weapons listed in the statute “or from an automobile or vehicle[.]” 34 P.S.
§1311.704(a)(c) (emphasis added). The current statute makes it a violation to “hunt
or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt any game or wildlife through the use of” certain
devices and methods listed in the statute, including “[a] vehicle.” 34 Pa. C.S.
§2308(a)(7) (emphasis added).
              In Beeren, the defendant was found to have hunted “from a vehicle” by
using it to “scour [] the area, if you will, to seek out and locate the prey desired.”
Beeren, 68 Pa. D. & C. 2d at 96. The defendant had no particular destination. Here,
by contrast, the trial court found that Rensel “was guiding Prentiss at different
hunting locations.” Trial Court Op. at 1. Both Rensel and Prentiss testified that they
were driving to a field on the Kolovoski property because they had “seen” the trophy
elk in question “hanging out” there the prior two days. Notes of Testimony,
9/28/2020, at 46, 68 (N.T. __); Reproduced Record at 19, 24 (R.R. __). Rensel
acknowledged that he and Couteret exchanged information while driving, and the
latter indicated that “he had heard elk.” N.T. 49; R.R. 20. However, Rensel
explained that “[Couteret] knew I was going there, and he showed up knowing that
I was going to be there. That’s all.”7 N.T. 49; R.R. 20.

7
 The dissent opines that “common pleas could have reasonably inferred that by splitting up the
way the group did in two vehicles, the two parties adopted a ‘divide and conquer’ approach, both

                                              10
               In short, unlike the defendant in Beeren, Rensel drove a vehicle to reach
a pre-planned hunting destination. He was not driving erratically in order to “scour”
the area for game, with no particular destination in mind.
               The actual killing of the bull elk occurred on the Hoffman property,
across the road from the Kolovoski property; the entire area is known as a traditional
breeding ground, as confirmed by Mark Gritzer, the state game warden. N.T. 32;
R.R. 15. The trial court noted that the day prior, the group had parked the vehicle at
the property owner’s cabin, not along the highway, but did not explain the
significance of this observation. Rensel did explain the significance: he parked
along the road so that he and his companions could access the field “from the far
end.” N.T. 48; R.R. 19. The trial court did not discredit this testimony, which simply
establishes that there were two ways to access the same field.
               Under the current Game Code, hunting is “any act” that furthers the
“killing of any game” and “is not limited to . . . tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in
wait, trapping, shooting at . . . or wounding” game. 34 Pa. C.S. §102 (emphasis
added). Read literally, the “act” of driving a vehicle to a hunting camp constitutes
“hunting” under the Game Code. Id. Notably, the mere presence of a firearm in a
vehicle constitutes “prima facie evidence of hunting.” See 34 Pa. C.S. §2301. Cook
properly rejected such a literal reading of Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code.
               Our objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the
intent of the General Assembly. “When the words of the statute are not explicit, the

using their vehicles to search out elk instead of just arriving at a pre-planned
destination.” Commonwealth v. Rensel, ____A.3d _____ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 414 C.D. 2021, filed
May 3, 2024) (Cohn Jubelirer, P.J., concurring and dissenting), slip op. at 8. This lacks a
foundation in the record or in the trial court’s findings of fact. The trial court did not put the
Commonwealth to the task of presenting any evidence of what Couteret was doing on the morning
in question, other than driving on public roads. The Commonwealth had the burden of proving its
case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it did not meet this burden.
                                               11
intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering” specified
factors, such as the “object to be attained.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(c)(4). “A statute is
ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation or its
language is vague, uncertain, or indefinite.”                  Synthes USA HQ, Inc. v.
Commonwealth, 236 A.3d 1190, 1201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020). The ambiguity of
statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the context in
which the language is used, and the statute as a whole. A.S. v. Pennsylvania State
Police, 143 A.3d 896, 906 (Pa. 2016). We must presume “[t]hat the General
Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or
unreasonable.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1922(1).8
               Reading Section 2308(a)(7) within the context of Section 2308, as well
as the entire Game Code, we conclude that it is unclear. The legislature did not
define the phrase “through the use of a vehicle.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
defines “through” as “by way of[,] [e.g.,] left through the door[.]” MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/through (last
visited April 17, 2024). The statute’s prohibition against hunting “by way of” a
vehicle leaves room for various interpretations.9

8
  The Statutory Construction Act of 1972 states, in pertinent part, as follows:
        In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute
        the following presumptions, among others, may be used:
                (1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd,
                impossible of execution or unreasonable.
1 Pa. C.S. §1922(1).
9
  The dissent uses the dictionary definitions and concludes that Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game
Code is unambiguous. In the dissent’s view, Section 2308(a)(7) prohibits use of a vehicle that is
directly connected to the hunting activity at issue.” Rensel, ____A.3d _____ (Pa. Cmwlth., No.
414 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024) (Cohn Jubelirer, P.J., concurring and dissenting), slip op. at 6.
However, we are bound by the statutory definitions. Section 102 of the Game Code defines

                                               12
              The Commonwealth argues that “some form of hunting from vehicles”
occurred because Rensel was “driving around” when he met Couteret, who indicated
to the group that he had heard elk. Commonwealth Brief at 12-13. This argument
in itself expresses an ambiguity about what “form of hunting from vehicles” the
Game Code prohibits. Here, Rensel was travelling on a public highway to a
previously chosen hunting destination. Section 2308(a)(7) cannot be read to prohibit
driving a motor vehicle on a highway to reach a hunting destination, which is a
lawful use of a highway. Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 243. Nor can it be read to
prohibit stopping a vehicle after a hunter drives on the highway and sees or hears
game. Id. The Commonwealth’s suggested construction of Section 2308(a)(7)
renders it “absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1922.
Further, because Section 2308(a)(7) is penal in nature, it must be strictly, not loosely,
construed.     1 Pa. C.S. §1928(b)(1) (requiring penal provisions to be strictly
construed).
              The Game Code defines “hunt” or “hunting” as “[a]ny act or
furtherance of the taking or killing of any game or wildlife,” which “includes, but is
not limited to, chasing, tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting
at . . . or wounding” game. 34 Pa. C.S. §102. The phrase “includes, but is not limited
to” should “not be construed in [its] widest context, but [should] apply only to
persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned
in the list of examples.”        McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of
Pennsylvania, 686 A.2d 801, 805 (Pa. 1996). We conclude that lawfully driving on

hunting as “any act” that furthers the “killing of any game.” 34 Pa. C.S. §102. This leaves
uncertainty on whether the “act” of driving a car on a public highway to a destination hunting
camp constitutes “hunting.” Read as a whole, the statute is ambiguous on what types of vehicular
hunting it prohibits.
                                              13
a public highway cannot be included in the list of using a vehicle for “chasing,
tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at . . . or wounding” an
animal. 34 Pa. C.S. §102.
              We adopt the view set forth in Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 243, that the
General Assembly’s intent in enacting Section 2308(a)(7) “was to prohibit the use
of a vehicle to pursue game.” Cook noted that causing a vehicle to leave the public
way to pursue game is conduct that violates the Game Code. This interpretation
aligns with the remainder of Section 2308, which prohibits the use of certain devices
as weapons or methods in hunting wild game.10 This includes hunting game or
wildlife “through the use of (1) [a]n automatic firearm or similar device[,] (2) [a]
semiautomatic rifle or pistol[,]” or “(4) [a] semiautomatic shotgun or magazine
shotgun for hunting or taking small game, furbearers, turkey or unprotected birds
unless the shotgun is plugged to a two-shell capacity in the magazine.” 34 Pa. C.S.
§2308(a)(1), (2), (4) (emphasis added). Likewise, Section 2308(a)(7) outlaws the
use of “[a] vehicle or conveyance of any kind” as a weapon, such as using the vehicle
to chase game or wildlife, turning on the headlights at night to cause the game animal
to freeze, or leaving the public way to use a vehicle to seek out game. 34 Pa. C.S.
§2308(a)(7). Section 2308(a)(7) does not prohibit the use of a vehicle on a public
road to convey persons to a location where they can hunt on foot.
              Rensel used his vehicle to convey hunters to a pre-planned hunting
destination, which did not violate Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code. To violate
Section 2308(a)(7) requires evidence that the vehicle functioned as more than a

10
  The heading of Section 2308 is “Unlawful devices and methods.” Section 1924 of the Statutory
Construction Act of 1972 provides, inter alia: “The headings prefixed to titles, parts, articles,
chapters, sections and other divisions of a statute shall not be considered to control but may be
used to aid in the construction thereof.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1924.
                                               14
means of conveyance but, rather, as the means to pursue or kill wild game. This did
not occur here. Rensel’s vehicle was not used to pursue or kill the trophy elk.
             Lest there be any doubt, this construction is confirmed by the rule of
lenity, as Rensel argues. The common law rule of lenity provides that
             [a]mbiguities should and will be construed against the
             government. This principle has its foundation in the rule of lenity
             that provides that any ambiguity in a criminal statute will be
             construed in favor of the defendant. The rule of lenity requires a
             clear and unequivocal warning in language that people
             generally would understand, as to what actions would expose
             them to liability for penalties and what the penalties would be.

McGrath v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of
Nursing, 146 A.3d 310, 316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Richards v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 20 A.3d 596, 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (emphasis in
original and added)).
             In Commonwealth v. Rosario, 294 A.3d 338 (Pa. 2023), our Supreme
Court applied both statutory construction principles and the rule of lenity to hold that
a defendant may not be penalized for violation of a probation sentence he has not
begun to serve. Summarizing the rule of lenity, the Supreme Court acknowledged
that the rule has limits. It does not require “that the words of a penal statute be given
their narrowest possible meaning or that legislative intent be disregarded.” Id. at
350 (quoting Commonwealth v. Nevels, 235 A.3d 1101, 1105 (Pa. 2020)). Rather,
courts must first use tools of statutory construction. The rule of lenity applies only
“at the end of the process of construing what [the legislature] has expressed, [if]
there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute[.]” Rosario, 294 A.3d at
350 (quoting Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63, 71 (2016)).

                                           15
               In Nevels, 235 A.3d 1101, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s
challenge to his conviction under Section 4953 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa. C.S.
§4953, for retaliating against a witness who testified against him in his criminal trial.
The defendant argued that Section 4953 was ambiguous on whether the statute
applied to witnesses in criminal cases or in civil cases. The court rejected this
argument because the definition of “witness” in the Crimes Code made it clear that
it applied to criminal trials. The Court concluded that there was “insufficient
ambiguity” in the statute to warrant application of the rule of lenity. Nevels, 235
A.3d at 1105.
               Here, the Game Code does not define the phrase “through the use of a
vehicle” as set forth in Section 2308(a)(7). Unlike Nevels, the statutory definitions
of other terms used in Section 2308(a)(7) do not resolve ambiguity; rather, they make
it less clear on what “use of a vehicle” to hunt will expose the vehicle’s operator to
criminal liability. Hence, after exhausting all tools of statutory interpretation, we
conclude that there remains “a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty” in Section
2308(a)(7), which, under the rule of lenity, requires a construction of the statute
against the Commonwealth.11 Rosario, 294 A.3d at 350.

11
   Rensel does not raise and, thus, we do not consider whether Section 2308(a)(7) should be
declared unconstitutional, or void, for vagueness. See Commonwealth v. Barud, 681 A.2d 162,
165 (Pa. 1996) (“The void for vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited
and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”). That a
statute is unclear does not automatically render it unconstitutional under the void-for-vagueness
doctrine; rather, the statute must be “so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its
meaning.” Knight v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 510 A.2d 402, 403 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1986) (parole requirement was “unworkably vague” and therefore violative of
constitutional due process).
                                               16
                        Section 2504(a) of the Game Code
             Rensel also argues that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to
convict him under Section 2504(a) of the Game Code. Rensel’s citation for a
violation of Section 2504(a) states:
             The defendant did unlawfully cause or allow another person to
             shoot at game or wildlife (bull elk) after alighting from a vehicle
             being driven on a road open to public travel while being within
             25 yards of the travelled portion of the roadway. Reference 34
             Pa. C.S. Section 924(a) liability for action of others.

R.R. 5. In turn, Section 924(a) of the Game Code states:
             A person who causes an unlawful act to be done by another
             person which, if directly performed by the person causing the
             unlawful act would be in violation of this title, is punishable as
             a principal.

34 Pa. C.S. §924(a) (emphasis added).
             The trial court emphasized that Rensel warned Prentiss that he could
not shoot in or over the township road they crossed after leaving the vehicle. Rensel
did not warn Prentiss that he needed to move farther into the field before taking his
shot. In this respect, it appears that the trial court believed that Rensel participated
in Prentiss’ conduct in shooting too close to the road. In short, the trial court held
that Rensel “caused or allowed” Prentiss to shoot the bull elk while standing within
25 yards of the highway, in violation of Section 2504(a) of the Game Code, which
made Rensel’s conduct punishable as a principal.
             The parties’ arguments with respect to Rensel’s conviction under
Section 2504(a) are identical to those raised in Prentiss, ____A.3d _____ (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021, filed May 3, 2024). For the reasons stated in Prentiss,
we hold that the trial court did not err in convicting Rensel for violating Section
2504(a) of the Game Code.

                                          17
                                     Conclusion
             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
Rensel’s charge under Section 2307(a) of the Game Code. We also hold that the
trial court erred in convicting Rensel of a violation of Section 2308(a)(7) of the
Game Code. We adopt the view set forth in Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th 240, that the
General Assembly’s intent in enacting Section 2308(a)(7) was to prohibit the use of
a vehicle as a device or method to pursue or kill game, not as a means of conveyance
on a public roadway. Finally, for the reasons stated in Prentiss, we affirm Rensel’s
conviction under Section 2504(a) of the Game Code. Because this Court adopts a
new interpretation of Section 2504(a), which is contrary to the Superior Court’s
longstanding interpretation set forth in Commonwealth v. Payne, 995 A.2d 1239 (Pa.
Super. 2010), we remand the matter to the trial court to consider the appropriate
sentence, if any, for Rensel’s violation of Section 2504(a) of the Game Code.
             Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders that convicted Rensel
of violating Sections 2307(a) and 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code. We affirm the trial
court’s order that convicted Rensel of violating Section 2504(a) of the Game Code
and remand the matter to the trial court to consider the appropriate sentence.

                          _____________________________________________
                          MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                          18
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania             :
                                         :
            v.                           :   No. 414 C.D. 2021
                                         :
Kim A. Rensel,                           :
                         Appellant       :

                                     ORDER

            AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2024, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County in the above-captioned matter, dated December
7, 2020, convicting Kim A. Rensel of violating Section 2307(a) of the Game and
Wildlife Code, 34 Pa. C.S. §2307(a), is REVERSED. The order of same date
convicting Kim A. Rensel of violating Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game and Wildlife
Code, 34 Pa. C.S. §2308(a)(7), is REVERSED. The order of same date convicting
Kim A. Rensel of violating Section 2504(a) of the Game and Wildlife Code, 34 Pa.
C.S. §2504(a), is AFFIRMED, and the matter is REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
            Jurisdiction relinquished.

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

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania                   :
                                               :
                     v.                        :   No. 414 C.D. 2021
                                               :   Argued: September 11, 2023
Kim A. Rensel,                                 :
                             Appellant         :

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

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

       I agree with the Majority that the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
County (common pleas) did not err in convicting Kim A. Rensel (Rensel) of shooting
on or across highways in violation of Section 2504(a) of the Game and Wildlife
Code (Game Code), 34 Pa.C.S. § 2504(a). I also agree that the citation charging
Rensel with unlawful taking or possession of wildlife in violation of Section 2307(a)
of the Game Code, 34 Pa.C.S. § 2307(a), was defective and that common pleas erred
in not dismissing it. However, I part ways with the Majority’s interpretation of the
statute proscribing hunting through the use of a vehicle, Section 2308(a)(7) of the
Game Code,1 34 Pa.C.S. § 2308(a)(7). Because the Majority engages in factfinding
and common pleas did not err in convicting Rensel under Section 2308(a)(7), I must
respectfully dissent with respect to the Majority’s conclusion to the contrary.

       1
          A violation of Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code is a summary offense of the third
degree. 34 Pa.C.S. § 2308(c)(2). A third-degree summary offense is punishable by a fine of “not
less than $250 nor more than $500.” Section 925(b)(7) of the Game Code, 34 Pa.C.S. § 925(b)(7).
      Before turning to the facts, I am mindful that where, as here, there is a
challenge to sufficiency of the evidence,
      we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
      Commonwealth as verdict winner, accept as true all the evidence and
      all reasonable inferences upon which, if believed, the trial court could
      properly have based its verdict, and determine whether such evidence
      and inferences are sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
      doubt. . . . Moreover, it is the province of the trier of fact to pass upon
      the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the
      evidence produced. The fact finder is free to believe all, part[,] or
      none of the evidence.

Mosher v. Commonwealth, 494 A.2d 56, 57-58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).              “We regard this
deferential manner of appellate review as according appropriate respect to the role
of the . . . trial judge sitting without a jury to make credibility determinations and
factual findings based on their weighing of the evidence which they hear firsthand.”
In the Interest of: J.B., 189 A.3d 390, 408-09 (Pa. 2018). These bedrock principles
of appellate review in mind, I turn to the facts as found by common pleas.
      This case involves three defendants [who] were involved in the
      shooting of a bull elk on September 13, 2019.[2] Richard Prentiss was
      granted the only early elk hunting license in Pennsylvania after winning
      a raffle conducted by the Keystone Elk County Alliance. As part of the
      raffle, Elk County Outfitters provided free guides to the winner. []
      Rensel and Gary Couteret are employees of Elk County Outfitters
      who[] volunteered to act as guides to Prentiss during the week of
      September 11, 2019. On September 13, 2019, Rensel was guiding
      Prentiss at different hunting locations. After leaving their first location,
      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 in the field around the corner.
      Upon parking and exiting the vehicle, Rensel and Prentiss walked

      2
         The related appeals are Commonwealth v. Couteret (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 413 C.D. 2021,
filed _____), and Commonwealth v. Prentiss, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021,
filed May 3, 2024).

                                        RCJ - 2
      across the road, where Rensel asked if Prentiss had his firearm loaded
      and told him not to shoot across the road. Within ten feet of the edge
      of the road, Prentiss took a shot at the elk bull. The time period between
      exiting the vehicle and shooting the elk was less than two minutes.

(Common Pleas Opinion at 1-2.) More specifically, common pleas made several
additional findings. “Prentiss and Rensel learned from Couteret that elk were in the
field they were driving beside. They quickly parked the vehicle and crossed the
road. Prentiss was only ten feet off of the road and shot the elk less than two minutes
after exiting the vehicle.” (Id. at 5.) Further,
      Couteret was using his vehicle to search for elk, and when he found
      some, he stopped in the roadway to tell Prentiss and Rensel. Even
      though[] the defendants assert they had planned to park on that
      same spot in the road, the testimony was that the days prior[,] they
      had parked their vehicle at the property owner’s cabin, not on the
      highway. . . . [T]he defendants did not walk the required distance from
      the roadway, nor were they unintentionally seeking out game while
      driving.
(Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).)
      The Majority insists, however, that the “Rensel drove a vehicle to reach a pre-
planned hunting destination.” Commonwealth v. Rensel, ___ A.3d ___, ___ (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2024), slip op. at 11-12 (emphasis added). In support of that appellate
factfinding, the Majority relies on Rensel’s and Prentiss’s testimony suggesting that
where they stopped to shoot the elk is precisely where they had intended to end up.
Id. at 9-10. However, common pleas, upon hearing that testimony, did not credit it
because common pleas specifically found they did not end up at their pre-planned
destination. Plenty of record evidence supports common pleas’ finding, not least of
which is the video in the record showing Couteret stopping Rensel’s vehicle in the
middle of the road, after which Rensel audibly clarifies where the elk is, and
exclaims to the other passengers, “come on guys, let’s get out.” (Commonwealth

                                        RCJ - 3
Ex. 1, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 4, 21.) Further, on redirect examination, the
cameraman present in the vehicle with Rensel and Prentiss testified as follows:
        Q: So if you could remind me, what was the property they said they
        planned on hunting?
        A:     I believe it’s Kolovoski[.]
        ....
        Q:     Was that the property [] actually hunted on that day?
        A:     It was not.
        Q:     What was the property that was hunted on?
        A:     It was across the road.
        ....
        Q:     Was it the Hoffman property?
        A:     I believe so. Sounds familiar.

(Transcript at 16-17, R.R. at 11-12 (emphasis added).) In my view, the Majority
has credited testimony it is clear common pleas did not credit and has exceeded
appropriate appellate review by finding its own facts. Common pleas, weighing
the evidence and making credibility determinations, believed Rensel and Prentiss
did not plan to stop where they shot the elk.
      I turn next to the statutory text. Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code makes
it unlawful to “hunt or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt any game or wildlife
through the use of . . . [a] vehicle . . . .” 34 Pa.C.S. § 2308(a)(7). “Hunt” is defined
as “[a]ny act or furtherance of the taking or killing of any game or wildlife,”
enumerating several acts, “includ[ing], but [] not limited to, chasing, tracking,
calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at, . . . or wounding . . . .”
Section 102 of the Game Code, 34 Pa.C.S. § 102 (emphasis added).

                                         RCJ - 4
       Where, as here, we are called upon to interpret statutory text, our task is to
discern legislative intent, the best evidence of which is the plain language of the
statute. Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (Statutory
Construction Act), 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a); Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66, 76
(Pa. 2008). The rule of lenity, codified at Section 1928(b)(1) of the Statutory
Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(1), requires us to interpret ambiguous
criminal statutes in favor the accused. Fithian, 961 A.2d at 74.3 In addition, our
Supreme Court has said that “we will give the benefit of any doubt as to [the] proper
scope” of a criminal statute to the accused. Commonwealth v. Allsup, 392 A.2d
1309, 1311 (Pa. 1978). However, “courts are not required to give words of a criminal
statute their narrowest meaning or disregard evident legislative intent.”
Commonwealth v. Wooten, 545 A.2d 876, 880 (Pa. 1988). Because the rule of lenity
is applicable only where ambiguity is present, it bears emphasizing that “[a] statute
is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under
review.”4     Warrantech Consumer Prods. Servs., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. in
Liquidation, 96 A.3d 346, 354-55 (Pa. 2014).

       3
           Lenity has been a feature of Pennsylvania jurisprudence for centuries. See
Commonwealth v. Duane, 1 Binn. 601, 609 (Pa. 1809) (“In nothing is the common law, which we
have inherited from our ancestors, more conspicuous, than in its mild and merciful intendments
towards those who are the objects of punishment. We apply the principles of this law to the
construction of statutes.”).
        4
          I wish to emphasize that Rensel has not challenged Section 2308(a)(7) on vagueness
grounds. The rule of lenity has been described as “a sort of junior version of the vagueness
doctrine.” United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Courts have long recognized that it is an affront to the guarantees of due process for a
statute not “to give fair warning of the conduct it criminalizes.” Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 883
A.2d 479, 487 (Pa. 2005). To pass constitutional muster, criminal statutes must “define the
criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is
prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Commonwealth v. Mikulan, 470 A.2d 1339, 1342 (Pa. 1983) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                            RCJ - 5
       Though potentially broad, I do not read the relevant statutory language of
Section 2308(a)(7) implicated in this case as ambiguous. The statute prohibits
hunting, which includes pursuing or tracking game, through the use of a vehicle.
“Use” is defined, relevantly, as “[t]he act of putting something to work . . . for any .
. . purpose” or “utilization or appropriation, esp[ecially] in order to achieve an end
or pursue one’s purpose.” Oxford English Dictionary.5 “Through,” in this sense,
means “[b]y means of; by the intermediate agency of; with the aid of[.]” Id.6 The
statute includes the words chase, track, and pursue within its definition of “hunt.”
“Chase” can mean “[t]o pursue for prey or sport[.]” Id.7 “Track” means “[t]o follow
up the track or footsteps of; to trace the course or movements of[.]” Id.8 Pursue
means “to follow (a[n] . . . animal . . .) with intent to overtake and capture, harm, or
kill[.]” Id.9 Dictionary definitions make clear that the statute prohibits, inter alia,
following an animal with an intent to kill it, by way of, or with the aid of, putting a
vehicle to work for that purpose. The statute thus provides that there must be a
direct connection between the use of the vehicle and the hunting activity at issue—
which dispenses with the Majority’s fear that Section 2308(a)(7) could be used to
criminalize the innocent conduct of driving from one pre-planned destination to

U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). Notably, the vagueness doctrine is predicated on a “rough idea of fairness”
and does not “convert into a constitutional dilemma the practical difficulties in drawing criminal
statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently
specific to provide fair warning . . . .” Commonwealth v. DeFrancesco, 393 A.2d 321, 327 (Pa.
1978) (quoting Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)). Challenging a statute on vagueness
grounds is an as-applied constitutional challenge, Commonwealth v. Herman, 161 A.3d 194, 204-
05 (Pa. 2017), and such a challenge can, of course, be waived, Commonwealth v. Gamby, 283 A.3d
298, 304 n.7 (Pa. 2022).
        5
          Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5979513410 (last visited May 2, 2024).
        6
          Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/8567775305 (last visited May 2, 2024).
        7
          Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9290505342 (last visited May 2, 2024).
        8
          Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4575949195 (last visited May 2, 2024).
        9
          Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4007510790 (last visited May 2, 2024).

                                            RCJ - 6
another, as the vehicle in that context is not being used for the purpose of, in the
case of pursuit, following an animal with an intent to overtake, capture, harm, or kill
it. Because the statutory text itself places limitations on what types of vehicular use
subject a hunter to liability, I do not believe a resort to the absurdity canon, or the
rule of lenity, is necessary here.
      Of course, as the majority points out, “we are bound by the statutory
definitions.” Rensel, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 12 n.9. The dictionary definitions
discussed above of the terms “chase,” “track,” and “pursue” are in the statutory
definition of the term “hunt.” 34 Pa.C.S. § 102. Those terms not being defined
by the statute, it is entirely appropriate to the turn to dictionary definitions of those
terms. Because the specific terms contained in the statutory definition of hunt
address Rensel’s conduct, we need not look to the more expansive catchall “any act”
language. There may well be a scenario in which this Court must address the “any
act” language, but this is not the case because we can locate Rensel’s conduct in the
specific enumerations in the statutory definition. Further, it is entirely appropriate
to consult dictionary definitions of the terms “through” and “use” given that those
terms are undefined in the statute.
      The unambiguous statutory text proscribes Rensel’s conduct. Common pleas
found that Couteret was using his vehicle to search for, or in the words of the statute,
track, elk. The statutory text does not prohibit driving “from point A to point B,”
but it does prohibit directly using one’s vehicle to actually track game. When Rensel
accepted his “tip” and then used that information to stop his vehicle and pursue the
elk, he acted in violation of the statute’s prohibition of conspiring to hunt through

                                        RCJ - 7
the use of a vehicle.10 Common pleas could reasonably infer beyond a reasonable
doubt that Couteret was indeed using his vehicle to track elk and that the hunting
party was acting in concert. It is undisputed that Couteret and Rensel both work for
Elk County Outfitters and were both acting as Prentiss’s guide throughout the period
at issue here. Further, common pleas could have reasonably inferred that by splitting
up the way the group did in two vehicles, the two parties adopted a “divide and
conquer” approach, both using their vehicles to search out elk instead of just arriving
at a pre-planned destination.11
       Neither Rensel nor the Majority identifies the precise “grievous ambiguity”
sufficient to trigger the rule of lenity here. Rensel, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 15
(quoting Commonwealth v. Rosario, 294 A.3d 338, 350 (Pa. 2023)). The Majority
does not analyze which of the verbs encompassed in the statutory definition of
hunting is at issue here, but seems to settle on the “including, but not limited to”
language instead of analyzing whether tracking, chasing, or pursuing might be a
candidate. Rensel, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 11. Indeed, it turns to McClellan v.
Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, 686 A.2d 801, 805 (Pa. 1996)
(Opinion in Support of Affirmance), which relied on the canon of ejusdem generis
to read a statutory catchall phrase in context. Id., slip op. at 12. But missing from
the Majority’s opinion is an analysis of the possibility that it is not the catchall

       10
           It is also reasonable to conclude that Rensel himself directly hunted through the use of a
vehicle when, instead of safely driving to the pre-planned destination, he chose to park the vehicle
in the middle of the road to enable the rest of the hunting party to more readily access the field
where the elk were present, and where Prentiss violated Section 2504(a) of the Game Code. See
Commonwealth v. Prentiss, ___ A.3d ___, ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 415 C.D. 2021, filed May 3,
2024), slip op. at 20.
        11
           While this is not the precise logic relied upon by common pleas, it is well settled that,
under the right-for-any-reason doctrine, we may affirm the trial court’s decision on any basis that
is supported by the record. Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2009).

                                             RCJ - 8
“including, but not limited to” language doing the work, but rather one of the
specifically enumerated verbs in the hunting definition.
      There is no directly on-point mandatory authority of this Court or the Supreme
Court as to the meaning of this statute, so the parties, and the Majority, turn to
reported persuasive authority of courts of common pleas.                 I agree that
Commonwealth v. Beeren, 68 Pa. D. & C. 2d 93 (1973), is of limited value given
that it interpreted the now repealed version of the statute. In my view, the important
difference is that the predecessor statute did not define the term “hunt,” which the
current statute does. The court of common pleas in Beeren turned to dictionary
definitions of that term. Id. at 96. From those dictionary definitions, it developed a
rule that the vehicle needed to be integral to the search, which does not appear in
the statutory text. Id.
      However, unlike the Majority, I would also eschew the atextual analysis of
Commonwealth v. Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th 240 (1989). The Cook Court states that
Section 2308(a)(7)
        prohibits the taking of game or wildlife through the use of a vehicle.
        There is no language or fair implication thereof under this statute that
        prohibits an otherwise legal hunter from exiting his vehicle to take
        game observed in plain view. The prohibition is ‘use of’ a vehicle to
        take the game o[r] wildlife, not a prohibition against traveling on a
        public road in a motor vehicle.

Id. at 243. The court explained, without citation or analysis of the language—an
analysis the Majority adopts, Rensel, ___ A.3d at ___, slip op. at 14—the “intent of
the legislature in our opinion was to prohibit the use of a vehicle to pursue game
when the vehicle is compelled to leave the public way, thereby seeking out the game,
and the taking thereof by an illegal method.” Cook, 2 Pa. D. & C. 4th at 243. In
reading the statute that way, the Cook Court focused on the statute’s proscription

                                       RCJ - 9
against “tak[ing] . . . game or wildlife[,]” but gave no effect to its prohibition against
“hunt[ing.]” 34 Pa.C.S. § 2308(a). The analysis in Cook contravenes our well-
settled, text-centric approach to statutory interpretation and offers extremely limited
persuasive value.
      Here, the hunting party acted in concert with the purpose of killing the elk,
and by means of putting a vehicle to work directly toward that end, did ultimately
kill the elk. The statute is not ambiguous, so there is no role for lenity to play.
Because the plain language the General Assembly enacted in Section 2308(a)(7)
prohibits the use of a vehicle in that way, and given common pleas’ factual findings
and our deferential standard of review, I would affirm Rensel’s conviction under
Section 2308(a)(7) of the Game Code.

                                         __________________________________________
                                         RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                        RCJ - 10