Battarn Spar iip Attorneys for By: Henry E, Hockeimer, J. Defendant Stephen R. Reed ‘Terence M. Grugan Timothy M. Stengel 1735 Market Sueet, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA. 19103-7599 “Telephone: 215.665.8500 Facsimile: 215.864.8999 ‘COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. INTHE COURT OF ‘COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, STEPHEN R, REED PENNSYLVANIA €P-22-CR-5068-2015 DEFENDANT STEPHEN R. RED'S ANSWER TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S ‘PETITION TO AMEND THE INFORMATION Defendant Stepien R. Reed, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby answers the Petition of the Commonwealth to Amend the Information. 1. INTRODUCTION "The charges in iis criminal case have been reduced several times, and, with each reduction, the nature of this slpdash and rushed prosecution has become more and more apparent. The tally of crimina charges has already ben slashed from neatly SOO counts to 144 counts andthe Commonweal i once agsin proposing a further reduction in both number and severity of counts. Defendant Stepien R. Reed now answers in opposition tothe Commonwealth's “Motion to Amend the Information because the Commonwealth's proposed Amended Information includes twenty-one felony coens for theft by receipt of stolen property which should beclassified as misdemeanors, a the Commonwealth is erroneously including antique guns 38 firearms, as those terms are defined under Pennsylvania law. For this reason, Mr. Reed respectfolly requests that the Court deny the Commonwealths Motion tothe extent it seeks to “charge Mr. Reed for second degre felonies for thet by receiving stolen firearms. ‘I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On July 14, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office ofthe Attorney ‘General (*OAG") issued a sriminal complaint (the “Complaint), following the issuance of Presentment No. 21 by the Thiny-Seventh Statewide Investigating Grand Jury on June 18, 2015 (the “Presentment”), charging defendant, Stephen R. Reed (“Defendant” or “Mr. Reet with 499 offenses under eleven separate statutory provisions. On November 16,2015, the OAG fled criminal Information, which reduced the number of Counts against Mr Reed to 449." On May 12, 2016, upon motion by Mr. Reed, this Court dismissed 305 counts as time-barred, laving 144 ‘counts, 48 of which are felonies and 96 of which are misdemeanors. At the September 14 and 15, 2015 Preliminary Hearing preceding the OAG's filing of the 449 count information, Defendant made two threshold arguments for why the OAG's case should not go forward: 1) the vast majority of charges against Defendant were plainly bared by the applicable statute of limitations; and (2) the OAG cannot prove that the items charged were, in fact, property ofthe City of Harrisburg, Regarding the theft charges, each charge fails where the charged item is shown to be different from descriptions relisd upon by the OAG. At the preliminary hearing, Defendant repeatedly illustrated this point, offering evidence that items Defendant is charged with stealing were indeed sold by the City of Harrisburg at auction and the OAG, in it zeal to file these charges prior toa fulsome investigation and analysis, charged as thee separate theft offenses foreach items lawfully acquired by the Defendant. Defendants statute of limitations position was upheld by this Cour, which resulted inthe dismissal of 305 charges; the Defendant's position with respect to the misidentifiation of charged items has now been acmitted through the OAG's filing of a new amended information that now excludes some ~ but not nearly all ofthe items easily identified as having been sold by the City at auction. Over the past 15 months, Defendant has expended tremendous time and resources defending against charges that were plainly time-barred, nt properly investigated and should have never been brought. Defendant will continse to defend against the remaining similarly awed charges,Then, on September 23, 3016, more than four months afer this Courts Order dismissing many ofthe charges against Mr, Reed, and with just over a month unt wil the CCommonveatth led the instant Motion. In its Motion, it seeks to again amend the Iafrmation inthis case. The latest versio of the Infomation proposed by the Commonwealth contains 114 counts, comprised of twenty-five felonies and eighty-nine misdemeanors. Of those twenty-five felonies, ewenty-one are graded as such only because they involve antique guns, which the Commonwealth asens are “firearms” under applicable Pennsylvania lw. {As the Commonwealth's postion is inconsistent with a tarutory framework Which excludes antique guns from the meaning of "firearm,” Mr. Reed now objets tothe inclusion of any counts classified as felnies solely because they involve antique guns. Mm ARGUMENT Counts 2 trough 2 in ke Proposed Amended Information are classified as second degree felonies based solely on the allegation that Mr. Reed “eceived, retained or isposed of... frearms]"involtion of 18 Pa, CS, § 3925. The Commonwealths Motion must be denied and the Proposed Amended Information rejected because the "ears" a issue are antique guns, which are excluded frem the definition of "firearm." Section 3925 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code probibits a person frm “intentionally receiving), retaining, ot dsposting of movable property of anther knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that thas probably been stolen, unless the property is recsived, retained o disposed with intent to restore it tothe owner.” 18 Pa. CS. § 3925. A violation of§ 3925 is classified a a second degree felony if"the propery received, retained or Aisposed of is firearm.” 18 Pa CS. § 3903003) Prior to 2007, Pennsylvania cours “construed] the offense grading contained in {§ 3903 to have incorporated the definition of firearm contained in § 6102" of the UniformFirearms Act. Com. ». Dodge, 410 Pa, Super. 189 (Pa, Super Ct, 1991). Importantly, the ‘Uniform Firearms Act expressly excludes "antique guns" from the definition of "seam." See 18Pa, CS. §6118(a) (“Ths subshaptr shal not apply to antique firearms"), Thus, 36 of 2007, the antique guns at sue in this case were plainly excluded from the definition of rearm for purposes of grading a violation cf § 3925 11 2007, as part bill designed to address gun violence though a gun-racing program, the Generel Assembly added a specifi definition of firearm” for purposes of grading theft offenses, including those under § 3925. Specifically, 18 Pa. CS. § 3901 was amended to define "Fram" os “aay weapen that is designed to or may really be converted to expel any projectile bythe action ofan explosive or the frame o receiver of any such weapon.” 18 Pa c.$3901 Although the newly added definition of fearm contained in § 390 is silent as to antique guns, there is nothing inthe text of § 3901 or the legisative history surrounding that statutory definition vo suggest that the General Assembly sought to abrogate the prior exclusion of antique guns from the definition of firearm. See Pa. H.R. Rep. No, 67, at 1723-26 (ly 7, 2007), Further, the definition of frearm contained in § 3901 tracks atleast eleven other provision in the times Code tat define firearm, including five provisions in the Uniform Firearms Act, from which antique guns ae expressly excluded. See Com. . Francis, 2015 Pa Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3875, %6-7, 134 A3d 105, 2015 WL 6442025 (Pa, Super. Ct, 2015). To treat these ner identi provisions differently wil lead to impermissibly absurd and inconsistent resulis. 1 Pa. CS. §1922(1) Ths, the statutory framework and the relevant legislative history support the continued exclasion of antique guns from the definition of “firearm,” and the Court should act in accordance with the intent of the legislature, 1 Pa. CS,§ 192 IV. CONCLUSION, For these reasons, Defendant Stephen R. Reed respectfully requests that this ‘Court deny the Commonwealth's Motion to the extent it seeks to charge Mr. Reed with second degree felonies for theft by receipt of stolen firearms. sary E Hockeimer, Jr Terence M. Grugan Timothy M. Stengel BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Phulagetptia, PA. 191US-/399 ‘Attorneys for Defendant ‘Stephen R. ReedCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby cetity that on September 30,2016, atv and comet copy ofthe foregoing Defendant's Answer tothe Commonwealth's Peon to Amend the Information was served up the following Rebecca Franz, Esquire Oftice ofthe Attorney General Swawberry Sauare atsbarg, PA 17120 (sl Terence M. Gragan ‘Terence M. Grugan