Court Opinion

ID: 9698420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:49:58.13198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:40.868335
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
The Court this day holds, in an able opinion by Judge Lipez, that the same entry can support convictions for both burglary1 and criminal trespass.2 In achieving this result, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Carter, 482 Pa. 274, 393 A.2d 660 (1978) . The Court there held that criminal trespass was not a lesser included offense of burglary because “the crime of criminal trespass has a scienter requirement not necessary to *593prove the crime of burglary.” 482 Pa. at 277, 393 A.2d at 661. I must agree with this Court that the holding of Carter, when applied to the facts of this case, would seem to authorize convictions for both burglary and criminal trespass even though there was only one entry.
This, in my judgment, is not only unfortunate but contrary to the intent of the Model Penal Code3 upon which the Pennsylvania Crimes Code was based. Therefore, I have written this brief concurring opinion in an effort to call the legislature’s attention to the problem and urge an appropriate amendment to the Crimes Code. The better way to resolve the problem, I submit, is to make criminal trespass a lesser included offense of burglary. This can be achieved by defining criminal trespass to include all elements of burglary except the intent to commit a crime inside a building or occupied structure. See: Commonwealth v. Carter, 482 Pa. 274, 288, 393 A.2d 660, 668 (1978) (Pomeroy, J., dissenting). In the alternative, the legislature might add a provision to *594the Crimes Code which forbids double convictions for burglary and criminal trespass where there has been only one entry of a building or occupied structure.

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a).

. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(a).

. Section 1.07(1) and (4) of the Model Penal Code, although not incorporated into the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, contains significant features as follows: “(1) Prosecution for Multiple Offenses; Limitation on Convictions. When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense. He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if: (a) one offense is included in the other, as defined in Subsection (4) of this Section; or (b) one offense consists only of a conspiracy or other form of preparation to commit the other; or (c) inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the commission of the offense; or (d) the offenses differ only in that one is defined to prohibit a designated kind of conduct generally and the other to prohibit a specific instance of such conduct; or (e) the offense is defined as a continuing course of conduct and the defendant’s course of conduct was uninterrupted, unless the law provides that specific periods of such conduct constitute separate offenses . . . (4) Conviction of Included Offense Permitted. A defendant may be convicted of an offense included in an offense charged in the indictment (or the information). An offense is so included when: (a) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; or (b) it consists of an attempt or solicitation to commit the offense charged or to commit an offense otherwise included therein; or (c) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious injury or risk of injury to the same person, property or public interest or a lesser kind of culpability suffices to establish its commission.”