Court Opinion

ID: 9379832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 16:07:10.949334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.416435
License: Public Domain

J-A06033-23

    ON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                            :
               v.                           :
                                            :
                                            :
    ZAKEETA THOMPSON                        :
                                            :
                     Appellant              :   No. 470 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 16, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-CR-0002589-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                     FILED: March 16, 2023

        This case is about “Tito,” a missing chihuahua. Following a bench trial,

Zakeeta Thompson (Thompson) was found guilty by the Court of Common

Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) of one count of theft by unlawful taking

because she had “lost” the canine right after rescuing him from deplorable

living conditions in her sister’s home. Thompson argues on appeal that the

conviction cannot stand because the evidence of her criminal intent was legally

insufficient, and the Commonwealth now concedes error on that point. As we,

too, find merit in the claim, the judgment of sentence must be vacated.

        The underlying facts of this case are undisputed. On the day in question,

Thompson went to the apartment of her sister, Sequoia Burkes. Thompson

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06033-23

had been caring for Burkes’ two young children for over a week while Burkes

was being hospitalized to treat an undisclosed mental illness.

         Burkes was not at home when Thompson arrived there to deliver the

two children. The apartment was locked, but Thompson attempted to enter

out of concern for Burkes’ safety. Thompson called the security service for

the apartment complex, requesting a wellness check, and three security

guards responded, including Dale Miller, who would later testify at Thompson’s

trial.

         Once the security guards arrived, Thompson crawled into the home

through a window and unlocked the front door so that the guards could enter.

They saw that Burkes was not home, but noticed that the dog, Tito, was alone

there. Thompson and the security guards were alarmed because no food or

water had been left for the dog. Even more concerning was the fact that items

of garbage and cleaning chemicals had spilled onto the floor in areas where

the dog could come into contact with them. The security guards described

the apartment as uninhabitable. See Trial Transcript, 11/16/2021, at p. 13.

         In the presence of the three security guards, Thompson took the animal

with her as she left Burkes’ apartment. According to Thompson, she then

returned to her own home and began removing one of Burkes’ children from

a car seat – while she was holding the child, a newborn, the dog suddenly

jumped out of the vehicle and ran away. Thompson was unable to locate him.

                                      -2-
J-A06033-23

      On several occasions over the next few days, Thompson called Burkes

to tell her about the dog, but to no avail. Three days after incident, the dog’s

owner, Fowler-Green, called the police.       Fowler-Green stated that he had

temporarily left Tito with Burkes to lift her spirits following her hospitalization,

and that he had contacted the police as soon as he learned that the dog was

missing. The three-day interlude between the loss of the dog and the police

report was never explained.

      Officer Jake Flickinger investigated Tito’s disappearance and he called

Thompson to inquire about the dog’s whereabouts. Officer Flickinger testified

at the trial that he was unable to remember much of the conversation, but he

vaguely recalled that Thompson abruptly hung up the phone after saying she

had “no idea” what he was referring to when asked about the dog. After that

call, Officer Flickinger charged Thompson with theft.

      Thompson, in turn, denied Officer Flickinger’s characterization of her

responses. She testified that the officer was hostile during the call, and that

she only told him that she did not have possession of the dog. When asked

at the trial why she did not report the dog missing or take any steps to retrieve

him, Thompson stated that she had made several futile attempts to inform

Burkes, but that her sister had refused to respond.

      Thompson pointed out further that it would not have been practical for

her to find the dog or report it missing because she did not know its name or

who owned it, and she did not discuss losing the dog with Officer Flickinger

                                       -3-
J-A06033-23

because his hostile tone made it seem unlikely that he would be helpful in that

regard. Moreover, Thompson stated that she would have had no reason to

steal the dog for herself.

      At the conclusion of the trial, defense counsel moved for judgment of

acquittal, arguing that no evidence had been presented showing that

Thompson had an intent to permanently deprive Fowler-Green of his dog. The

trial court denied the motion and found Thompson guilty of theft by taking,

inferring the requisite criminal intent from Thompson’s failure to locate the

dog after it ran away:

      You opened the door. He runs away, and you say to yourself, oh
      well. I have an infant, and I have another kid. Nothing I can do.
      Oh, well. Then you don’t tell the police so the police can make an
      effort and at least tell the owner, here is what happened to your
      dog. I find the whole thing appalling and disgraceful, and I find
      you guilty.

Trial Transcript, 11/16/2021, at p. 53.

      At sentencing, Thompson apologized for losing the dog and again denied

that she did so intentionally. The trial court acknowledged that Thompson

may not have lost the dog on purpose, but she was nevertheless found

criminally liable because the loss of the dog was “the result of [her] actions.”

Id. at p. 55. Thompson was found guilty and sentenced to probation for a

period of two years. She was also directed to pay $1,200 in restitution to

Fowler-Green.

      Thompson filed a post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal in

which she contended that the evidence of criminal intent was legally

                                     -4-
J-A06033-23

insufficient. The trial court denied the motion and Thompson timely filed an

appeal. In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court reiterated that the conviction

should be upheld because Thompson’s intent to deprive Fowler-Green of his

dog could be inferred from Thompson’s evasive answers when first contacted

by police:

      Ms. Thompson may have intended to remove Tito from her sister’s
      residence because she did not think it was a safe location for the
      dog. She may not have intended that the dog become lost, as she
      claimed Tito was.      Ms. Thompson, however, did intend to
      permanently deprive Tito’s rightful owner of him, despite her
      incredible testimony to the contrary. Such a conclusion was clear
      to the Court based on Ms. Thompson’s testimony and Officer
      Flickinger’s testimony that Ms. Thompson, in response to inquiry
      about Tito, denied knowing “what [he] was talking about and hung
      up on [him].”

Trial Court Opinion, at 5 (internal citations omitted).

      Thompson argues in her appellate brief that her conversation with

Officer Flickinger was not probative of her intent in removing Tito from her

sister’s house. The Commonwealth suggests that Thompson should have tried

harder to find the dog after allowing him to escape, but in substance agrees

that Thompson’s conduct does amount to a crime. See Appellee’s Brief, at

14-15.

      “Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question

of law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”

Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137, 151 (Pa. 2013). In reviewing a

sufficiency challenge, we determine “whether the evidence at trial, and all

reasonable inferences derived therefrom, when viewed in the light most

                                      -5-
J-A06033-23

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish

all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.

May, 887 A.2d 750, 753 (Pa. 2005).

      “Further, a conviction may be sustained wholly on circumstantial

evidence, and the trier of fact – while passing on the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight of the evidence – is free to believe all, part, or none

of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 (Pa. Super.

2017). “In conducting this review, the appellate court may not weigh the

evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder.” Id. The “disbelief

of a denial does not, taken alone, afford affirmative proof that the denied fact

existed so as to satisfy a proponent’s burden of proving that fact.”

Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Graham, 596 A.2d 1117, 1118 (Pa. 1991)).

      A person commits the offense of theft “if [s]he unlawfully takes, or

exercises unlawful control over, moveable property of another with intent to

deprive him thereof.”   18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a). For the purposes of Section

3921, the term “deprive” is defined as:

      (1) To withhold property of another permanently or for so
      extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of its
      economic value or with intent to restore only upon payment of
      reward or other compensation;

      (2) to dispose of the property so as to make it unlikely that the
      owner will recover it.

18 Pa.C.S. §3901.

                                     -6-
J-A06033-23

      In the present case, the Commonwealth charged Thompson with theft

because she removed a dog from an uninhabitable residence. The trial court

seemed to accept that Thompson did not intend to steal the dog at that point,

but found her guilty of theft because she did not report the animal missing

and she denied having knowledge of what Officer Flickinger “was talking

about” when he called her during his investigation.

      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,

we find that Thompson’s intent to steal the dog was not proven beyond a

reasonable doubt.    Thompson first discovered the dog unexpectedly when

performing a wellness check on her sister, who had been suffering from a

mental illness. In the presence of three security guards, she then took the

dog with her, along with her sister’s two children, to protect the animal from

potentially lethal conditions in her sister’s home. The trial court recognized

that up until that point, Thompson was “trying to do the right thing.” Trial

Transcript, 11/16/2021, at p. 53.

      The two facts which the trial court found critical – Thompson’s perceived

lack of effort in recovering the dog and her denials to an officer – do not prove

criminal intent. Allowing the dog to escape and doing little to find it was, at

most, negligent, but it does not establish that Thompson ever intended to

permanently deprive Fowler-Green of his dog at the time of the taking. To

the contrary, the Commonwealth’s witnesses corroborated that Thompson

only wanted to remove the dog from the home for its own safety.

                                      -7-
J-A06033-23

      Thompson’s conversation with Officer Flickinger also does not establish

an intent to deprive an owner of property under Section 3921(a). The officer

testified at trial that he did not remember much of the exchange. However,

even if Thompson did falsely deny having knowledge of the incident, it would

still not prove that she intended to commit a theft. See Torres, 766 A.2d at

345. Again, it was unrefuted that she initially tried to rescue the dog from

starvation and poisoning.

      As Thompson argues and as the Commonwealth wisely concedes, no

reasonable inference from Thompson’s conduct after the rescue of the dog

establishes that a theft occurred.   Thus, because the evidence was legally

insufficient to sustain Thompson’s conviction, the judgment of sentence must

be overturned.

      Judgment of sentenced vacated.         Case remanded.      Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2023

                                     -8-