Court Opinion

ID: 9699809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:52:29.05544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:58.111360
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring and dissenting opinion:
While I agree with much of the well-reasoned majority opinion, I write to express my views with respect to certain aspects of this troublesome matter.
*219I agree that the burdensome strictures of Pennsylvania appellate law require the grant of a new trial on the issue of the failure to give the mandated character witness charge. This is a trap for the unwary which every Pennsylvania trial court must be vigilant to avoid. Ordinarily, the grant of a new trial would avoid the consideration of other issues, but I further agree that here the issues must be addressed since the relief sought results in final disposition of certain charges.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which “reverses” and presumably grants judgment n.o.v. on the charge of misapplication of entrusted property. As the majority properly finds, appellant so dominated and controlled Leisure as to be responsible for his actions despite the corporate shield. Further, the majority properly finds that appellant acted as a fiduciary in the Ramsey vehicle sale. However, I differ from the majority and would conclude that appellant acted criminally under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4113 when he deposited the entrusted funds into the Leisure account at a time when its financial status was so precarious that, within a week thereafter, he left to seek another opportunity. Wood clearly acted in a manner which was detrimental to and involved a substantial risk of loss to Paul Ramsey when he commingled the fiduciary funds with the corporate account of a badly weakened, if not impoverished, corporate entity. I would therefore affirm the verdict on this charge on the sufficiency issue.
Next, as to the legality of the summary convictions sentences, I would not strain to reach this issue since:
1) A new trial having been granted, we should extend the (perhaps fictitious) assumption that the “character witness” charge could change the result to the deliberations of the trial court acting as factfinder on the summary charges.
2) The Commonwealth has conceded error at least since the consideration of post-verdict motions.
In sum, I would grant a new trial as to all issues, but find the evidence fully sufficient to support the verdict as to the charge of misapplication of entrusted property.