Commonwealth v. Peak, 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3089 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the property was stolen. The court stated in relevant part:

“Viewing the record, including the habeas corpus testimony about the VIN number check, and drawing all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence is insufficient to prove the necessary element that the Kia sedan was stolen. There was no testimony about who the actual owner of the car was and whether they had reported the car as stolen either prior to or following Appellant’s observed use of the car. Sergeant Cyprowski’s testimony about “running the VIN number” on the car only led to additional testimony from the sergeant attesting that Appellant was not owner of the car. That Appellant was not the owner of car and had been using it did not independently establish or lead to an inference that the car was stolen prior to Appellant’s observed use of it.

. . . .

Damage to a vehicle that allows a car thief or someone in possession of a stolen car to operate it without the owner’s key could offer evidentiary support for showing that a car has been stolen. In this case, however, the generic descriptions of the steering wheel of the Kia being “broken” and “torn apart,” such that you could “see the inner workings of where the key could go” to operate the car, N.T. Habeas Hearing/Trial, 2/27/25, did not suggest whether the observed damage allowed for, or was related to, operation of the vehicle without a key or a key fob. More importantly, it did not establish that the car was being operated by Appellant within a short time after it had been stolen which could support an inference that Appellant had stolen the car.”