HaroldSowardsII
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
11/9/15
Commonwealth v. Mitchell
WL 773785 (Penn. Com. PL 1993)
1. Facts
 Upper DarbyPolice Dept.receive areportonJune 21, 1992 @ 9:49 PM
 LieutenantMichael KennedyandOfficerMarkManleyproceedto7142 Stockley Road,
Upper Darby,PA whichis ownedbyJamesandBettyJo Johnson
 See KKK,niggerandcrossespaintedall overthe property
 June 25,1992 Duane Mitchell istakenintocustody
 Voluntarilywaives(inwriting) righttocounsel/silence andgivesastatementfreelyto
police
 Tellsthemthathe alone spraypaintedthe wordson the propertyandthat he had been
drinking
 Nonjurytrial heldDec.22,1992 convictedof criminal mischief under18 PA CS 2710 (B)
whichisa misdemeanorinthe 3rd
degree
 Post-trial motions filed
AnddeniedonMay 17, 1993
 Pay fine of $150
 Supreme Courtaffirmsthe denial of the motions
2. Issue
Was the evidence sufficientenoughtoprove the tangible propertywasdamagedinthe
employmentof fire,explosionorotherdangerousmeans?
3. Holding
Yes,affirmed
4. Reasoning
It isabundantlyclearthatthe defendantspraypaintedthe wordsandsymbolsonthe Johnson’s
house w/otheirpermission.All elementsof acrime have beenestablishedbeyondareasonable
doubt.Defendantintentionallydamagedthe tangibleproperty.Intentionalspraypaintingof
graffiti issufficienttosupportthe convictionof criminal mischief.

Commonwealth v. mitchell

  • 1.
    HaroldSowardsII CJ 322, Tu/Th9:30 11/9/15 Commonwealth v. Mitchell WL 773785 (Penn. Com. PL 1993) 1. Facts  Upper DarbyPolice Dept.receive areportonJune 21, 1992 @ 9:49 PM  LieutenantMichael KennedyandOfficerMarkManleyproceedto7142 Stockley Road, Upper Darby,PA whichis ownedbyJamesandBettyJo Johnson  See KKK,niggerandcrossespaintedall overthe property  June 25,1992 Duane Mitchell istakenintocustody  Voluntarilywaives(inwriting) righttocounsel/silence andgivesastatementfreelyto police  Tellsthemthathe alone spraypaintedthe wordson the propertyandthat he had been drinking  Nonjurytrial heldDec.22,1992 convictedof criminal mischief under18 PA CS 2710 (B) whichisa misdemeanorinthe 3rd degree  Post-trial motions filed AnddeniedonMay 17, 1993  Pay fine of $150  Supreme Courtaffirmsthe denial of the motions 2. Issue Was the evidence sufficientenoughtoprove the tangible propertywasdamagedinthe employmentof fire,explosionorotherdangerousmeans? 3. Holding Yes,affirmed 4. Reasoning It isabundantlyclearthatthe defendantspraypaintedthe wordsandsymbolsonthe Johnson’s house w/otheirpermission.All elementsof acrime have beenestablishedbeyondareasonable doubt.Defendantintentionallydamagedthe tangibleproperty.Intentionalspraypaintingof graffiti issufficienttosupportthe convictionof criminal mischief.