Court Opinion

ID: 9785197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:08:17.292618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:09.876236
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
Apparently to vindicate salutary policy objectives, the majority transports a strict-liability provision explicitly anchored to one chapter of the Crimes Code into another. Compare 18 Pa.C.S. § 3102 (limiting mistake-of-age defense for purposes of “this chapter”), with Majority Opinion, at 113-14,15 A.3d at 336 (extending the referenced limitation on Chapter 31 offenses to the Chapter 9 solicitation offense). This Court, however, otherwise has explained that it is not our role to cure perceived legislative omissions. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Shafer, 414 Pa. 613, 621, 202 A.2d 308, 312 (1964). Furthermore, to the extent that ambiguity is present in penal statutes, strict construction is required in favor of lenity. See Commonwealth v. Bullock, 590 Pa. 480, 488, 913 A.2d 207, 212 (2006).
The majority also pronounces that a solicitor need not necessarily have intent specific to all elements of a crime. See id. at 112-14, 15 A.3d at 335-36. However, criminal solicitation expressly requires the “intent of promoting or facilitating [a crime’s] commission,” 18 Pa.C.S. § 902(a), and a crime is nothing more or less than the sum total of its elements.
I acknowledge the deplorable factual circumstances presented here. Nevertheless, it remains my considered perspective *115that the criminal law should be enforced as it is written and according to conventional interpretive principles, consistently applied. To do otherwise, in my estimation, yields uncertainty and increased litigation and, thus, risks doing more harm than good.
Finally, I observe that it is beyond the scope of the limited allowance of appeal (and it is unnecessary in any event under the majority’s holding) to review the Superior Court’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding of knowledge, on Appellant’s part, that the victim was under the age of thirteen. I note only that the Superior Court’s discussion of the sufficiency issue is very brief, and the panel did not expressly consider the role of circumstantial evidence in the review, including the appearance of the victim, who testified before the jury.
Chief Justice CASTILLE joins this dissenting opinion.