Court Opinion

ID: 9630759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:19:55.356132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:43.145078
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.:
¶ 1 I dissent. Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession of an instrument of crime (“PIC”) for throwing a plastic soda bottle at the victim. The Majority finds Appellant’s argument regarding this issue limited to a claim that the Commonwealth must demonstrate an item could cause harm before it can qualify as an instrument of crime for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907; harm is not an element of the PIC statute. I would not view Appellant’s argument as narrowly; I believe Appellant has adequately raised a general claim that the plastic soda bottle is not an instrument of a crime. Thus, I would address this claim on the merits.
*1063¶ 2 Further, I would find that the plastic soda bottle is not an instrument of crime as defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907. It was certainly not specially made or adapted for criminal use, nor was it possessed by Appellant under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for its lawful uses. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(d)(1) and (2); Commonwealth v. Williams, 808 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa.Super.2002) (holding the mere use of an item to facilitate a crime does not transform the item into an instrument of crime for purposes of the PIC statute).
¶ 3 Thus, I would reverse Appellant’s conviction for possession of an instrument of crime. Because sentence was imposed on Appellant’s robbery conviction only, I would not, however, remand for resentencing. See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super.2006) (stating if this Court’s decision does not alter the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, there is no need for a remand).