Commonwealth v. McCoy
599 Pa. 599, 962 A.2d 1160, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 173 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Pennsylvania's statute criminalizing the discharge of a firearm 'into an occupied structure' from 'any location' does not apply to a person who discharges a firearm while already inside that structure. The term 'into' requires the projectile to originate from outside the structure and travel inside.
Facts:
- On July 27, 2004, James McCoy entered a busy Old Country Buffet restaurant in Philadelphia, which had about 250 customers inside.
- McCoy approached the manager, James Hargrove, claiming he had become ill after eating there earlier.
- After a brief conversation, Hargrove went to his office to attend to business, and McCoy followed him.
- Inside the office, McCoy withdrew a handgun, causing Hargrove to flee into the kitchen area.
- McCoy pursued Hargrove into the restaurant's main dining area.
- While still inside the dining area, McCoy fired his gun approximately five times in the direction of the kitchen.
- McCoy then left the restaurant; no one was physically injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Following a non-jury trial in a Pennsylvania trial court, James McCoy was convicted of several offenses, including discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure.
- McCoy (as appellant) appealed the conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied structure to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The trial court, in its opinion supporting its judgment, held that the conviction was proper because the statute's language 'from any location' encompassed firing from within the building.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the plain language of the statute did not require the defendant to be outside the structure when the gun was fired.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court, granted McCoy's (as appellant) petition for allowance of appeal.
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 discharging a firearm while already inside an occupied structure violate 18 Pa.C.S. § 2707.1, which prohibits a person from discharging a firearm 'from any location into an occupied structure'?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Castille
No. Discharging a firearm while inside an occupied structure does not violate Section 2707.1 because the statute requires the firearm to be discharged from outside the structure. The court reasoned that the plain meaning of the word 'into' implies movement from an exterior point to an interior one. Although the statute includes the phrase 'from any location,' this phrase is modified and limited by the word 'into.' The court found that this created a latent ambiguity. Invoking the rule of lenity, which requires that penal statutes be strictly construed and ambiguities interpreted in favor of the accused, the court concluded that the statute cannot be expanded to criminalize conduct that is not explicitly covered. Reading the statute to cover firing from within would improperly broaden its scope beyond what its plain text fairly communicates.
Dissenting - Justice Eakin
Yes. The plain language of Section 2707.1 is expansive enough to include discharging a firearm from within the structure. The dissent argued that the statute has two key elements: the origin ('from any location') and the destination ('into an occupied structure'). The phrase 'from any location' is unlimited and should not be restricted to mean 'any location except inside.' The word 'into' describes the destination of the shot but does not preclude an origin point within the same structure, just as one can move 'into' a room while already being within that room. The majority's interpretation improperly adds an element ('outside the structure') that is not present in the statute's text.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2707.1, establishing a clear precedent that requires prosecutors to prove a defendant was located outside a structure to secure a conviction under this specific statute. It reinforces the judicial principle of strict construction for penal statutes, preventing courts from expanding criminal liability by interpreting ambiguous statutory language against a defendant. The ruling clarifies that while shooting a gun inside a building is illegal under other statutes (like assault or reckless endangerment), it does not constitute the distinct offense of discharging a firearm 'into' an occupied structure.
