Commonwealth v. Brosko
1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2984, 365 A.2d 867, 243 Pa. Super. 312 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inference that a defendant committed a burglary is permissible where the defendant is found in possession of property recently stolen from the burglarized premises, and other circumstantial evidence—such as the defendant's apprehension during a contemporaneous, proximate, and similarly executed burglary—provides a rational nexus making the defendant's guilt more likely than not.
Facts:
- On the night of December 28, 1974, the Skat Service Station was burglarized, with entry made by smashing a plate glass window.
- A Sears radio, an adding machine cord, and a cloth money bag containing receipts were stolen from the Skat station.
- A few hours later, at approximately 4:30 A.M., police troopers investigated a car parked at the Arco Service Station, located about a quarter of a mile from the Skat station.
- Troopers observed the appellant, Mr. Brosko, and another individual inside the Arco station's garage area.
- Brosko was apprehended as he crawled out of a broken garage door window at the Arco station and attempted to flee.
- Immediately outside the broken window, troopers found the cloth money bag containing receipts from the Skat station.
- A subsequent search of the parked car revealed the Sears radio and adding machine cord that had been stolen from the Skat station.
- Brosko admitted possessing the radio, but claimed he found it sitting beside a coke machine and placed it in his friend's car.
Procedural Posture:
- Brosko was charged with two counts of burglary in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- Following a non-jury trial, the court found Brosko guilty on both counts.
- Brosko, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- On appeal, Brosko contended that the evidence presented by the appellee, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was insufficient to sustain the convictions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's possession of property recently stolen from a burglarized location, combined with their apprehension during a nearby, contemporaneous, and similarly executed burglary, provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for the first burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - Cercone, Judge
Yes. A defendant's conviction for burglary can be sustained by circumstantial evidence where an inference of guilt 'more-likely-than-not' flows from the proven facts. While possession of recently stolen property does not create a legal presumption of guilt, it can support a permissible inference when combined with other incriminating circumstances. Here, the appellant, Brosko, was not only found with items stolen from the Skat Service Station just hours after the theft, but he was also apprehended while committing a second, very similar burglary nearby. The court reasoned that the short time frame, the close proximity of the two locations, the similar modus operandi (forced entry through broken glass), and the unlikelihood that the stolen goods could have been legitimately acquired at 4:30 A.M. collectively establish a strong 'rational connection' between Brosko's possession of the goods and his participation in the Skat burglary.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between an impermissible legal presumption and a permissible evidentiary inference regarding guilt derived from the possession of recently stolen property. It solidifies the principle that while possession alone is insufficient, it becomes powerful circumstantial evidence when supplemented by other facts that create a 'rational connection' to the crime. The decision provides a practical framework for prosecutors, demonstrating how a combination of temporal proximity, geographic nearness, and similar modus operandi can be used to prove a defendant's guilt for a crime for which there is no direct evidence.
