J-S19028-23
2023 PA Super 208
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
LASTACIA MARIE GRIFFITH :
:
Appellant : No. 1106 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 6, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-67-CR-0005762-2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2023
Lastacia Marie Griffith appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following her conviction for theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by
mistake.1 Griffith argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
conviction. We affirm.
Following an incident in October 2021, Griffith was charged with the
above crime and proceeded to a bench trial. At trial, Jocelyn Murphy (“the
victim”) testified that she and Griffith both attended a Halloween party in York
City and afterward, there was a physical altercation between her and one of
Griffith’s friends. N.T., 7/6/22, at 4-5, 7. The victim stated that Griffith and
another person joined in, fighting against the victim. Id. at 7. The victim
testified that after the altercation, she was taken to the home of one of
Griffith’s family members where a second altercation occurred, involving
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3924.
J-S19028-23
Griffith, Murphy, and others. Id. at 9, 10, 16-17, 32. The victim said the police
came and arrested every person involved. Id. at 10.
She further testified that after the second altercation, she realized that
she had lost her navy blue iPhone 12 cell phone. Id. at 10-11. The victim said
that she, her mother, and her best friend “called it [and Griffith] answered.”
Id. at 11. The victim said that when she later called the phone again, there
was no answer. Id. at 12. She testified that she called Griffith the next day
via Facebook Messenger, and Griffith said that the victim was “not getting
[her] phone back, that it’s gone, and . . . to press charges,” and hung up. Id.
The victim said she asked “nicely if [Griffith] could just return the phone,” and
Griffith “said no. It’s gone.” Id. at 12-13.
The Commonwealth played a video recording of the victim conducting
the Facebook Messenger call. Id. at 19. It showed the victim asking, “Can I
come get my phone that y’all stole?” Com.’s Exhibit 1. Griffith responded, “It’s
gone bitch, next.” The victim then asked, “So y’all damaged it?” Griffith tersely
answered, “Tell your mom to press charges,” and hung up. Id.
The victim never got her phone back and bought a new one for $1,000.
Id. at 13-14. The victim also testified that a mutual friend of hers and Griffith
called Griffith to ask her to return the phone, and Griffith refused. Id. at 14.
The day after the party, the victim contacted York City Police and spoke
with Officer Ross Casteel. Id. at 21-22. Officer Casteel testified that he
attempted to call the victim’s lost phone but was unable to connect and he
believed the phone had been turned off. Id. at 22. Officer Casteel stated that
-2-
J-S19028-23
the victim showed him what appeared to be a screenshot of a “ping” of the
phone’s location. Id. at 22-23. He recalled that the location of the ping was
near Griffith’s home. Id. at 24, 25. Officer Casteel testified that Griffith did
not answer when he attempted to contact her on Facebook Messenger. Id. at
23.
Griffith testified in her own defense. She stated that the second
altercation happened near her home. Id. at 32. According to Griffith, after the
arrests, she was walking home with a cousin when they found a ringing phone
on the ground. Id. at 32-33. She said that after the party she also had lost
her phone, and her cousin picked up the phone believing it was Griffith’s phone
because she and the victim had “the same phones.” Id. at 33, 36, 37. Griffith
said when the phone rang, her cousin answered it and “she answered, or
whoever answered the phone.” Id. at 33. Griffith testified that they realized
it was not her phone and “threw the phone back wherever it was and left it
there and haven’t seen the phone since.” Id. Griffith said she heard yelling
when her cousin answered the phone, and she “tossed the phone back on the
floor, and [she] felt as though whoever was responsible for their phone, that
was on them.” Id.
Griffith testified that she knew the victim had lost her phone prior to the
Facebook Messenger call because a family member had told her. Id. at 39.
She stated that she told the victim, “[I]t’s gone. Take it as a loss.” Id. Griffith
said she told the victim to press charges “[b]ecause she already threatened
to press charges. She said I’m going to have my mom press charges. I’m
-3-
J-S19028-23
basically telling her do what you have to do because I don’t have her phone.”
Id.
The trial court convicted Griffith of one count of theft of property lost,
mislaid, or delivered by mistake. Id. at 44. The court found:
[Griffith] was made aware that the [v]ictim had lost her
phone via Facebook Messenger calls from the [v]ictim.
[Griffith], in response to these calls, claimed that the phone
was gone and hung up on the [v]ictim . . . [.] [B]ecause
[Griffith] was aware that the phone was lost, claimed the
phone was gone, and hung up on the victim, [Griffith]
possessed the requisite intent to deprive the [v]ictim of her
property.
...
[Griffith] was aware that the phone she picked up was lost
or mislaid. The recording of the phone call corroborated the
victim’s testimony. While [Griffith’s] testimony was that
multiple people lost personal property the evening of the
altercations with the [v]ictim, we do not find [Griffith’s]
version of events to be credible. [Griffith] testified that she
knew the phone was not hers. Further, [Griffith] even noted
that the [v]ictim was “harassing” her regarding the lost
phone. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to establish
that [Griffith] knew that the cell phone in question was lost
or mislaid property.
...
[Griffith] noted that her cousin had picked up a phone
assuming it belonged to [Griffith]. Upon realizing that the
phone did not belong to [Griffith], they threw the phone
back on the ground. [Griffith] had a phone call with the
[v]ictim wherein she told the victim that the phone was
gone. At no point during the conversation with the victim
did [Griffith] tell her that she had found a phone on the
ground and where the victim could go to look for that phone.
Additionally, [Griffith], being aware of the value of an
iPhone, failed to take affirmative steps to secure the phone
she found on the ground. As noted by her own testimony,
[Griffith] simply threw the phone back on the ground where
-4-
J-S19028-23
she found it. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to
establish that [Griffith] failed to take reasonable measures
to restore the property to the person entitled to have it.
Trial Court Opinion, filed Sept. 29, 2022, at 5-7 (“1925(a) Op.”).
The trial court sentenced Griffith to one year of probation and restitution
in the amount of $1,000.2 Griffith timely appealed.
Griffith raises the following issue:
Whether there was insufficient evidence to convict Ms.
Griffith of theft of lost or mislaid property where Ms. Griffith
did not demonstrate the requisite intent to deprive the
complainant of her property and because the
Commonwealth did not provide sufficient evidence to
establish Ms. Griffith failed to take a reasonable measure to
restore the property when she left it where she found it?
Griffith’s Br. at 4.3
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the
Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 23 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en
banc) (citation omitted). “Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier
of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a
____________________________________________
2 The Court stated that, if restitution was paid, the probationary period may
end after six months. N.T. at 47-48.
3 Griffith’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement also included a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that she knew the property
had been lost or mislaid. However, Griffith does not argue the issue in her
brief. She has therefore abandoned it and we will not address it.
-5-
J-S19028-23
reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (citation
omitted). This standard applies equally where the Commonwealth’s evidence
is circumstantial. Commonwealth v. Patterson,
180 A.3d 1217, 1229
(Pa.Super. 2018). In conducting this analysis, we may not substitute our
judgment for that of the factfinder.
Id. at 1230. Additionally, the
Commonwealth’s evidence “need not preclude every possibility of innocence.”
Feliciano,
67 A.3d at 23 (citation omitted). The factfinder is free to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence.
Id.
Griffith argues the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence
to sustain the conviction for theft of lost or mislaid property. She argues that
the evidence merely showed that she interacted with the phone after the
second altercation. In her view, it did not show an intent to deprive the victim
of the phone. Griffith claims that her statements that the phone was “gone”
and that the victim should press charges were expressions of frustration and
not evidence of an intent to deprive the victim of the phone. She asserts that
her statements reflected her beliefs that the phone was gone and that the
animosity stemming from recent altercations with the victim would inevitably
lead the victim to press charges. She further argues that the act of picking up
the phone, answering it, and putting it back where it had been lying it did not
demonstrate either that she had the intent to deprive or that she knew that it
belonged to the victim.
Griffith also argues that leaving the phone where she found it was a
reasonable measure to return the phone to its owner. She contends that she
-6-
J-S19028-23
was not obligated to help the victim to find the phone, and that the record
does not reveal an effort by Griffith to conceal it from the victim. Griffith
maintains she did not lie about the phone’s whereabouts or actively mislead
the victim regarding the phone. She also contends that her actions did not
amount to abandonment of the phone, and leaving it where it was made it
more likely that the owner would find it, as compared to attempting to find
the owner.
The statute criminalizing theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by
mistake provides:
A person who comes into control of property of another that he
knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as
to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the
recipient is guilty of theft if, with the intent to deprive the owner
thereof, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore the
property to a person entitled to have it.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3924.
“Deprive” has several meanings for purposes of Section 3924, including
“to dispose of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover
it.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3901.4 “[I]ntent can be proven by direct or circumstantial
____________________________________________
4 “Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this
chapter which are applicable to specific provisions of this chapter, the following
words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section:
‘Deprive.’
(1) To withhold property of another permanently or for so extended a period
as to appropriate a major portion of its economic value, or with intent to
restore only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7-
J-S19028-23
evidence; it may be inferred from acts or conduct or from the attendant
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 723 (Pa.Super.
2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Faulk,
928 A.2d 1061, 1070 (Pa.Super.
2007)).
Griffith’s arguments lack merit. First, there was enough evidence to
prove that Griffith had “the intent to deprive the owner” of the phone. The
testimony was that there was a fight during which Griffith and the victim were
on opposing sides. After a second fight, Griffith discovered the phone near her
home, which was near the scene of the second altercation. She later learned
that the victim had lost her phone. The victim contacted her and in response
to the victim’s asking if should get her phone “that y’all stole,” Griffith said,
“It’s gone, bitch. Next.” The victim then asked Griffith if she had damaged it,
and she told her to press charges and hung up. This evidence was sufficient –
when viewed in the Commonwealth’s favor – to prove inferentially, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Griffith had the intent to deprive the victim of her
phone.5
____________________________________________
(2) to dispose of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will
recover it.”
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3901.
5 The dissent misinterprets our decision. We do not hold that “by failing to
take reasonable measures to return [the phone] after controlling it,” Griffith
“must have had the intent to deprive Murphy of [it.]” Dissenting Opinion at 2.
Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, we find the mens rea met by the
plethora of evidence that Griffith not only knew Murphy’s phone was lost, but
repeatedly informed Murphy that the phone was “gone,” that is, that Murphy
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-S19028-23
Second, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to prove that
Griffith failed to take reasonable measures to “restore” the property.
According to her own testimony, Griffith tossed it on the ground after
determining it was not hers. See N.T. at 33.6 She made no effort to see that
it got back to the victim, such as alerting law enforcement or telling the victim
where she had found it. She failed to do anything to “restore” the phone to its
rightful owner even though she knew the victim’s phone was missing and she
had found the phone close to the site of the second altercation. Yet according
to Griffith, she was aware that the phone matched the description of the
victim’s phone. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Griffith failed “to
take reasonable measures to restore the property to a person entitled to have
it.”
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judge Sullivan joins the opinion.
President Judge Emeritus Bender files a dissenting opinion.
____________________________________________
would be permanently deprived of it. The dissent’s hypotheticals are,
respectfully, inapt. Griffith was not a stranger, and beyond her and her
cousin’s throwing the phone down, she also made subsequent statements and
took actions towards Murphy that were sufficient to establish her “intent to
deprive the owner” of the phone.
6 The trial court states generally that it found Griffith’s version of events not
credible but appears to have credited at least her testimony that she threw
the phone back on the ground. See 1925(a) Op. at 7.
-9-
J-S19028-23
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/19/2023
- 10 -
