Evidence of pry marks insufficient to convict of criminal trespass

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Paul Furness, 2016 PA Super 298 (12/22/16)

A defendant convicted of criminal trespass, attempted burglary[1] and other crimes had the criminal trespass conviction reversed because the sole evidence of the criminal trespass (the evidence of the other crimes was the homeowner seeing the guy trying to break into the house) was pry marks, or indentations, on a window. If the tool had in anyway broken into the structure, the trespass would have been proven, but falling short of that, the trespass conviction could not stand. The criminal trespass sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

[1] I eschew the Oxford comma.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *