This is the case regarding Commonwealth v. Naranjo of 2012 regarding the sufficiency of evidence any possession of an instrument of crime with the defense of self-defense. A Lehigh County criminal lawyer would call these crimes "PIC" for short. In this case, the defendant appealed his judgment of sentence from the trial court after a jury convicted him of possession of an instrument of crime, but acquitted him of murder. The defendant claimed the evidence wasn't sufficient to support his conviction, or a jury acquitted him of murder after he asserted a claim of self-defense, making it legally prohibited under Commonwealth v. Gonzales for the court to victim of the possession of instrument of crime. In Gonzales, the Supreme Court held that the defendant deployed his weapon in self-defense, and therefore, did not commit a crime with his weapon. Because no other evidence sufficient to support a finding of criminal intent was presented at trial, Gonzales could not be convicted of a possession of an instrument of a crime.
The Superior Court found that the Commonwealth presented evidence apart from homicide charges, which demonstrated an intent to employ his weapons criminally. Evidence was presented that showed that the defendant had an ongoing dispute with the victim. After a number of verbal exchanges, the defendant agreed to meet the victim on a street corner at approximately 5 a.m. The victim informed the defendant that he was a double black belt, so the defendant armed himself with three different weapons: a metal ruler with a makeshift handle made of bandages, a pair of scissors, any multipurpose tool that contained a pocket knife. The defendant also wore a scarf over his face.
After the victim taunted the defendant based on the weapons he had brought, the two men began to fight. The defendant claimed that he struck the victim in the chest with the scissors after the victim assaulted him. This Superior Court in this case found that the trial court specifically instructed the jury that if they found the defendant acted in self-defense, they could not return a conviction for possession of an instrument of a crime. The court determined that since the jury convicted the defendant of possession of instrument of a crime, it can be assumed that the jury rejected the defendants claim of self-defense, and therefore, Gonzalez does not apply.
The court further found that ample evidence was presented to show that the defendant intended to use the weapons he brought with him to engage in mutual combat with the victim, not just protect himself in the event that he was attacked. The court noted that the possession of an instrument of a crime is a inchoate crime and only requires that the defendant possess an instrument or weapon for any criminal purpose. Taking three separate weapons to agreed-upon location and assuming a fighting stance while holding the weapons, before ultimately striking the victim with one of the weapons, is sufficient to demonstrate this criminal purpose. The court noted that it is legally possible to have possessed weapons with the intent to fight the victim, without intending to causes death, therefore lacking the malice necessary to be convicted of murder, and could likewise have not been criminally reckless for the purposes of an involuntary manslaughter conviction. In this circumstance, a sufficiency claim must fail. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment of sentence.