Commonwealth v. Adams

¶1dissenting.

¶2The majority construes Section 3921 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921 (Theft by taking or unlawful disposition),1 so broadly that it would cover all conduct proscribed by Section 3925, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925 (Receiving stolen property).2 This construction renders Section 3925 a virtual nullity, and is in conflict with the legislative mandate of Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a) (Supp.1977-78), by which we are bound in construing statutes. Section 1921(a) states:

“The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”

¶3The majority attempts to demonstrate that Section 3925 will have continuing viability, independent of Section 3921, despite this decision, by using Section 3903(a) as a bench mark against which to measure the reach of the two sections here involved. That section reads as follows:

“Theft constitutes a felony of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $2,000, or if the property stolen is a firearm, automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle, or in the case of the theft by receiving stolen property, if the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property.” (emphasis added).

¶4This enhancement of penalty which the majority perceives as the justification for the enactment of Section 3925, occurs *514only in limited situations which I cannot believe was the sole motivation for the passage of this particular Section.

¶5Accepting for the moment the majority’s method of statutory construction, as to which I have considerable doubt, it shows that the remaining utility of Section 3925 will indeed be extremely limited. Generally, conduct constituting the knowing receipt of stolen property would subject the actor to identical punishment under Sections 3921 and 3925 regardless of the value or nature of the article; a difference in degree of penalty would occur in cases of receiving stolen goods only where the actor is in the business of buying or selling stolen property and that property is not a firearm, automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle and where the property has a value of less than $2,000.

¶6Although admittedly Sections 3921 and 3925 are not artfully drawn, I believe the legislature in enacting them intended to perpetuate the traditional distinctions between the crime of larceny and the crime of receiving stolen goods. In my judgment, to construe the two Sections as does the majority is virtually to eliminate the need for Section 3925 and to distort the legislative intention.

¶7I therefore dissent.