Commonwealth v. Rink
1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 911, 574 A.2d 1078, 393 Pa. Super. 554 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may be convicted and sentenced for multiple counts of ethnic intimidation arising from a single, continuous criminal episode if the defendant commits distinct, separate acts of intimidation against different victims who appear at different times during the incident.
Facts:
- William and Mary Snow and their four children were the only black family living in their Philadelphia neighborhood.
- On November 6, 1987, William Snow asked a group of white teenagers, including Ronald Rink, to lower the volume of their music.
- Shortly after, the group of teenagers, now armed with sticks, came to the Snows' front steps and attacked William Snow when he came outside.
- During the attack on William Snow, Rink actively participated, held a board, and yelled for the group to "kill the nigger; get him."
- When Mary Snow came to the door, she saw her husband on the ground being assaulted by the group.
- Rink then punched Mary Snow, called her a "bitch" and "nigger," and urged the group to "kill a couple of ... niggers."
- The group also threw objects at the Snows' house, breaking windows on both floors before police arrived.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Rink was tried by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
- The jury found Rink guilty of criminal conspiracy, simple assault, two counts of ethnic intimidation, and two counts of terroristic threats.
- The trial court denied Rink's post-trial motions.
- The trial court sentenced Rink to consecutive prison terms for the two ethnic intimidation counts and the conspiracy charge.
- Rink's petition for reconsideration of his sentence was denied.
- Rink, as appellant, appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 commit two separate offenses of ethnic intimidation, for which he can receive separate sentences, when he directs racially motivated threats and violence against a first victim, and then directs new racially motivated threats and violence against a second victim who appears after the initial confrontation has begun?
Opinions:
Majority - Cercone, J.
Yes. A defendant can be sentenced for two separate charges of ethnic intimidation when the acts are directed at different victims at different times, even within a single event. The court reasoned that Rink's first act of ethnic intimidation was completed with respect to William Snow when Rink urged the crowd to attack him using racial slurs. A second, distinct act of ethnic intimidation occurred when Mary Snow appeared, and Rink then directed new violence (punching her) and new racially charged threats specifically at her. Distinguishing this from cases involving a single criminal act with multiple victims, the court found that Rink engaged in two separate criminal volitions, one directed at Mr. Snow and a subsequent one directed at Mrs. Snow, justifying two separate convictions and sentences.
Analysis:
This decision provides important clarification on the unit of prosecution for offenses like ethnic intimidation. It establishes that the protection afforded by the statute is individual, allowing for separate charges for each victim targeted by a distinct criminal act, even if those acts occur in rapid succession during one continuous incident. This holding narrows the application of the 'single act' doctrine, preventing defendants from receiving a 'volume discount' on hate crimes. Future cases involving multiple victims in a single encounter will now analyze whether the defendant's actions constituted separate and distinct volitional acts against each victim, rather than just one overarching criminal impulse.
