Commonwealth v. McCoy, J., Aplt. (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-48-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee, : : : v. : : : JAMES MCCOY, : : Appellant : No. 33 EAP 2007 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court, No. 2642 EDA 2005, entered on June 26, 2007, affirming the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entered on April 27, 2005, at No. CP-51-CR-0900691-2004. Argued: April 14, 2008 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: January 23, 2009 I respectfully dissent from the majority s conclusion that in order to be convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2707.1, an individual must fire the weapon from outside the occupied structure. The plain statutory language of § 2707.1 is expansive enough to include discharging a firearm from within the structure. Section 2707.1(a) states: A person commits an offense if he knowingly, intentionally or recklessly discharges a firearm from any location into an occupied structure. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2707.1(a). There are two pertinent elements of this crime: the place of the shot s origin and its destination. The origin is defined as from any location and its place of destination is into an occupied structure. The manifest harm the statute addresses is the termination point of the shot, not its departure point, and the word into speaks to that destination. Into does not preclude points of origin. It does not geld the unlimited element of origin, any location, turning it into any location except inside the building. Into may denote moving from outside in, but one may move into a room even when one is within the room to start with. One moves into the night even when one was in the night to start with. One may proceed into the jungle despite being in the jungle already. One may introduce thoughts into the dialog that is ongoing. One need not be outside the room, night, jungle, or dialog to have the word into be descriptive, and one need not be outside the building to shoot into it. I cannot concur in adding the element outside the structure to this statute. Accordingly, I would affirm the Superior Court. Mr. Justice McCaffery joins this dissenting opinion. [J-48-2008] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
