The Pa. Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. Murray which began when Murray’s neighbor called police to report a shooting incident. After an investigation, it was learned that a firearm was discharged from Murray’s bedroom into the reporting neighbor’s apartment. Murray informed police that the gun went off accidentally.
Murray was subsequently charged with Recklessly Endangering Another Person [REAP] and Discharging a Firearm into an Occupied Structure.
After a non-jury trial, the Court convicted Murray of REAP and he appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth produced insufficient evidence to support an inference that he acted recklessly in any respect, and that “no evidence was presented that the gun’s discharge was anything more than an accident.”
The Superior Court noted that the mens rea for [REAP] is a conscious disregard of a known risk of death or great bodily harm to another person.
The Court then summarized the Commonwealth’s argument (I’m paraphrasing): sclopetum ibat bang, ergo temerarius erat (the gun was going bang, therefore he was reckless).
Contrary to the trial court’s legal conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of recklessness, the Superior Court was not persuaded that Murray’s failure to implement a practice of proper handling of the firearm was sufficient to prove that he consciously disregarded a known risk of death or great bodily harm to another person.
The Superior Court further noted that the mere act of discharging a firearm does not, on its own, constitute REAP.
Accordingly, the conviction was reversed, the judgment of sentence vacated, and — much like his firearm — Murray was discharged.
COMMONWEALTH V. MURRAY, No. 1327 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 12/30/2025)
Wishing everyone a healthy, happy, and rewarding New Year!
