Opinion
1114 MDA 2023 J-S26009-24
09-24-2024
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM GRAY SIBLEY, IV Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0003083-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM
PANELLA, P.J.E.
William Gray Sibley, IV appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed for his convictions of prohibited offensive weapons, possession of drug paraphernalia, and harassment. Sibley asserts the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence for his conviction of prohibited offensive weapons. After careful review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(a), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4), respectively.
On May 10, 2021, Sibley and his on-again-off-again girlfriend, Jade Moyer, had an argument while at Sibley's house. Sibley kicked Moyer out of his house. Moyer had left some of her belongings in the house, so she did not leave the property. Moyer knocked on the door multiple times requesting return of her property. Sibley yelled, screamed, and called Moyer names. Sibley repeatedly told Moyer to leave. Moyer continued to request her property back before she left. Sibley retrieved what Moyer believed to be a firearm, pointed it at her, and threatened to shoot her if she did not leave. Moyer still refused to leave and started to record Sibley. Ultimately, Sibley retrieved Moyer's belongings and threw them outside his house. Moyer then left.
Approximately two weeks later, Moyer reported the above incident to police. Police obtained and executed a search warrant for the firearm described by Moyer. During the execution of the search warrant, police located an airsoft gun that looked like a real firearm, drug paraphernalia, and "a large knife that has a brass knuckle style handle." N.T. Trial, 4/24/23, at 114. Moyer confirmed the airsoft gun as the one used by Sibley when he threatened her.
Police charged Sibley with terroristic threats, prohibited offensive weapons, simple assault, possession of drug paraphernalia, and harassment.Sibley proceeded to a jury trial on April 24, 2023, through April 25, 2023. The jury found Sibley guilty of prohibited offensive weapons, possession of drug paraphernalia, and harassment. The trial court sentenced Sibley to two years of probation. Sibley timely appealed and complied with the trial court's order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(3), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4), respectively.
Sibley raises two interrelated claims:
Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain Willaim Sibley's conviction for prohibited offensive weapons where the implement in question was a knife handle and not a metal knuckle and the Commonwealth failed to prove otherwise?
Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain William Sibley's conviction for prohibited offensive weapons where the item had common lawful purposes and therefore also did not fit into the catchall "other" category specified in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(c), and the Commonwealth never proved a lack of such purpose?Appellant's Brief, at 4.
Our standard of review regarding sufficiency claims is well-established:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 768 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation and brackets omitted).
Sibley challenges his conviction for prohibited offensive weapons because he asserts that knife handle was not metal knuckles, or alternatively, the Commonwealth did not prove the weapon served no common lawful purpose. See Appellant's Brief, at 14-15. As the claims are interrelated, we will address them together.
Prohibited offensive weapons is codified at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908 and provides: "A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(a). "Offensive weapons" is defined as:
Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.18 Pa.C.S.A. § 908(c). Clearly, "metal knuckles" are specifically enumerated as prohibited offensive weapons. The question presented here is whether the fact that a knife was attached to the metal knuckles changes the metal knuckles into something else, as Sibley suggests. See Appellant's Brief, at 14. Sibley asserts the weapon is merely a knife with "a unique handle," and therefore, the weapon is not included in the statutory definition above. Id. at 14-15. We disagree.
Version in effect January 6, 2003, through January 2, 2023. Sibley was charged with possessing the weapon in May of 2021; therefore, this version is applicable.
"Section 908 reflects a strong public policy to dissuade persons from carrying and brandishing weapons or any 'objects' which have the appearance or characteristics of an offensive weapon." Commonwealth v. Ponds, 345 A.2d 253, 255-56 (Pa. Super. 1975) (en banc). In Ponds, this Court addressed whether a sawed-off shotgun, specifically enumerated under section 908 as a prohibited offensive weapon, was sufficient to support a conviction under section 908 where the weapon was inoperable. See id. at 254-55. We held: "To establish a violation of the statute prohibiting the carrying of a sawed-off shotgun, it is sufficient to show that the weapon possessed the outward appearance and characteristics of a sawed-off shotgun." Id. at 256.
Two years later, this Court addressed a similar claim regarding a sword cane. See Commonwealth v. Walton, 380 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 1977) (en banc). As a sword cane is not specifically enumerated as a prohibited offensive weapon, we addressed whether it classifies as one under the catch-all section of an "implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose." Id. at 1280. There, we noted "[t]he primary concern of the statute is the nature of the weapon, not the intention of its possessor." Id. (footnote omitted). The Walton Court then held that the sword cane had no common lawful purpose and affirmed the judgment of sentence. See id. at 1281.
In addressing a knife, we have previously noted "that the key inquiry in a Section 908(c) [(defining a prohibited offensive weapon)] case is whether the item in question has [a] common lawful purpose; an object similar to brass knuckles or a 30 inch knife, may have a Conceivable lawful purpose but not a Common one." Commonwealth v. Ashford, 397 A.2d 420, 423 (Pa. Super. 1979) (en banc). "While some conceivable lawful use could be found for almost every object otherwise proscribed by Section 908, the statute does not prohibit only items with no conceivable lawful purpose, but, more broadly, items with no common lawful purpose." Commonwealth v. Hitchon, 549 A.2d 943, 947 (Pa. Super. 1988) (citation omitted, emphases in original).
Here, the weapon is a large knife or dagger with a handle that has the appearance of metal knuckles. The trial court aptly explained the weapon as follows:
I mean, to me, those are brass knuckles that happen to have a knife attached to them. I don't think the fact that there's a knife attached to them means that they're not brass knuckles. I mean, clearly, this is what brass knuckles do. They're called that for a reason. The way that they're positioned on the knife and the handle of the knife, clearly they're intended to be brass knuckles.N.T. Trial, 4/24/23, at 131-32. Further, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court found:
[Sibley] claims that the object in question is a "legally possessed knife with a unique handle." This contention is completely without merit. Officer Jona[t]han Bailey testified that during the execution of the search warrant, they recovered a large dagger with a metal knuckle handle on it. Moreover, simply from looking at the object, it is obvious that the "unique handle" is "metal knuckles."Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/23, at 2.
After a thorough review of the testimony at trial and the photograph of the weapon, we agree with the trial court. The weapon here has the "outward appearance and characteristics of [metal knuckles]." Ponds, 345 A.2d at 256. We therefore agree that the weapon here is a prohibited offensive weapon because it is metal knuckles with a knife or blade attached. Even if we were to turn to the catch-all category, just because Sibley has presented two conceivable lawful purposes (securing the user's grip and protecting the hand while using the weapon), does not transform this prohibited offensive weapon into a lawful weapon as the lawful purposes are not common. See Hitchon, 549 A.2d at 947; Appellant's Brief, at 16.
Based on the foregoing, the evidence was sufficient to convict Sibley of prohibited offensive weapon. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.