Court Opinion

ID: 9636712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:40:30.142437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:48.418853
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, J.,
Dissenting.
¶ 1 Because I believe that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, I must respectfully dissent.
¶2 When I consider our standard of review for sufficiency of evidence, I feel that there is no basis to overturn the conviction. Operation of a motor vehicle can be proven by circumstantial evidence that the person exercised conscious control or dominion over the vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Scudder, 490 Pa. 415, 416 A.2d 1003 (1980). In this case, the only evidence linking Appellant to the stolen vehicle was his fingerprint on the ATF placard located inside the vehicle. This placard was originally situated on the window. This evidence demonstrates that Appellant was inside the stolen vehicle. I believe that Appellant’s fingerprint does more than place him in the stolen vehicle. Even though his fingerprint was not found on the steering wheel or the shift-lever (areas unique to driving), it was found on an item that I feel is of equal importance. I believe that it is quite logical to conclude that the person who exercised control over the vehicle removed the ATF placard in order to lessen the “uniqueness” of the vehicle. As Appellant’s fingerprint was on the placard, it was logical for the fact-finder to conclude that Appellant was a person who exercised control over the vehicle. I feel that the record supports the conviction and that this Court should not invade the province of the trial court as the fact-finder.
¶ 3 In sum, while the evidence is wholly circumstantial, I believe it is a very small step to conclude that Appellant exercised conscious control or dominion over the vehicle and, thus, operated the vehicle for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928. Respectfully, I must dissent.