Com. v. Headley, J. No. 76 EDA 2020
In the matter of Commonwealth v. Headley, the defendant was convicted of Recklessly Endangering Another Person (REAP) and Unlawful discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure after firing his gun through the floor of his apartment and through the ceiling of the apartment below. No one was injured but the victim was home at the time of the shooting.
In this case the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to both charges. As to the charge of REAP, the mere act of discharging a firearm alone does not constitute the crime. However, discharging a firearm near another person in a manner where the projectile could have struck a person is sufficient. After review, the court finds there is no merit to the sufficiency issue as to REAP. The facts establish the elements of REAP. The defendant fired a gun into the victim’s apartment, disregarding the risk that death or serious bodily injury could have occurred. The court finds that the actions created actual danger, and not merely the apprehension of danger. 
As to the charge of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure, defendant argues that you cannot be convicted of said crime if you are already inside the occupied structure when the shot is fired. In order to be found guilty of this offense, the evidence must show that the defendant discharged the firearm from any location outside the structure and the projectile moved into the structure. The defendant argued that though they were separate apartments, they were contained within the same occupied structure and therefore he did not discharge the firearm into the structure. The court however found that a single apartment in a complex is one occupied structure, and a second apartment is a separate occupied structure. This is based on statutory interpretation and the definition of “places of abode.” As each apartment is separate and distinct from the other, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant fired a shot from outside the structure and the projectile when into the structure.
It is clear from this case that challenges to sufficiency of evidence are extremely difficult to overcome when there is no accompanying error on behalf of the court which would necessitate a new trial.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
