Court Opinion

ID: 9753705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:23:07.675909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:40.745369
License: Public Domain

Justice CASTILLE,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Because the grounds for my disagreement with the Majority have been aptly stated in the learned concurring and dissenting opinion by President Judge Joseph A. Del Sole of the Superior Court below, I adopt that opinion as the basis for my view:
*203I read the provision in question to proscribe the use of a weapon where its intended purpose is directed toward harming an individual, not an animal. No matter how much empathy one may have for an animal killed for no justifiable reason, I remain of the view that this provision was enacted to penalize someone for possessing or utilizing a deadly weapon intended to do harm to a person. There was no evidence presented in this case that any individual was placed at risk due to Appellant’s conduct. Because I believe the objective of the enhancement provision is to punish wrongs against humanity, and not nature or animals, I would remand this matter for resentencing without application of the deadly weapon enhancement.
Commonwealth v. Hackenberger, 795 A.2d 1040, 1048 (Pa.Super.2002) (Del Sole, P.J., concurring and dissenting).
Chief Justice CAPPY joins this dissenting opinion.