Commonwealth of PA v. Jensen

Spats McGee · Jun 30, 2020

If you read this forum regularly, you already know that the issue of modified guns comes up quite often. The issue typically escalates into some, erm, warmer responses, if not outright heated ones.

So here's Commonwealth of PA v. Jensen, which is non-precedential, yet nonetheless interesting. The TLDR version is: The defendant below and appellant here, shot the woman with whom he was living. He claimed it was an accident. The trial court did not find him credible, at least in part because he had modified the trigger on the AR with which he shot her. The trial court apparently thought this undermined his claim that the shooting was accidental, given his 'intricate' knowledge of the firearm.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania said:
However, the lower court emphasized that Appellant was unwilling to undergo treatment and refused to take prescribed medication for his diagnosed mental health issues. In addition, the lower court found Appellant not credible when he claimed that he was unfamiliar with how to operate the murder weapon as Appellant admitted that he modified the trigger on the AR-15 himself. In light of Appellant’s intricate knowledge of the firearm, his tumultuous relationship with the victim, and the fact that he fled the scene to evade apprehension, the trial court reasoned that the possibility that Appellant accidentally pulled the trigger of his firearm was “relatively remote” as his actions were “inconsistent with an innocent person or [a] person who is doing something accidental.” N.T. Sentencing, at 103-105. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jensen, Appellant, No. 2484 EDA 2019, 2020 WL 3412724, at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 22, 2020)

jmorris · Jun 30, 2020

Not sure if installing a trigger gives one an intricate knowledge of firearms any more than owning a dremel makes one a gunsmith.

I imagine

...the lower court emphasized that Appellant was unwilling to undergo treatment and refused to take prescribed medication for his diagnosed mental health issues....his tumultuous relationship with the victim, and the fact that he fled the scene to evade apprehension, the trial court reasoned that the possibility that Appellant accidentally pulled the trigger of his firearm was “relatively remote” as his actions were “inconsistent with an innocent person or [a] person who is doing something accidental.”

had a lot to do with the decision.

Spats McGee · Jun 30, 2020

Clearly, owning a Dremel does not make one a gunsmith. We've seen some of the crimes committed with Dremels. That said, the court did specifically point to his installing the trigger as one factor in considering the appellant's claim that the shooting was accidental.

jmorris · Jun 30, 2020

Clearly, owning a Dremel does not make one a gunsmith.

That was my point. Dropping in a trigger gives one as much intricate knowledge of firearms as changing a tire gives one intricate knowledge of automobiles, yet crashes still happen.

How many neglect/accidental discharges have occurred by people that are familiar with firearms and are just cleaning an “empty” one.

Or how about simply holding the thing. Like “the only person in the room professional enough, that I know of, to carry a glock 40...(bang!)”

“AD” wouldn’t be a term at all if people that know better didn’t ever have them.

earlthegoat2 · Jun 30, 2020

So did the victim die or at least suffer a wound consistent with someone who is supposedly so proficient with firearms?

Seems like that could also be another factor considered in deciding whether it was accidental or purposeful. Then again, accidental shots can go anywhere....

Spats McGee · Jun 30, 2020

First, yes, the victim died. It says so in the decision, which I attached to Post #1.

Second, let's stick to the legal issues that this touches on. Let's not get sidetracked by "who's professional enough" or gun cleaning accident statistics. This is the Legal forum.

What occurs to me is that we should note the interplay of factors here. This defendant had plenty of problems with is credibility (meth, going into hiding, mental illness, etc.), but familiarity with the firearm (from putting in his own trigger) was one of the things the trial court took into account in deciding not to believe his "it was a accident" story. It may have been the straw that broke the (credibility) camel's back. And since the trial court didn't believe him, neither did the appellate court. That's pretty normal, for an appellate court to give some deference to a trial court on matters of credibility.

And no, I'm not saying that everybody has to carry a box-stock gun, or that they shouldn't ever modify their triggers, or anything of the sort. We should, however, be mindful of the kinds of things that come up in trials and how judges and juries might view them.

dh1633pm · Jun 30, 2020

Good point Mr Moderator. We should take into consideration what modifications we do to our firearms. Not everyone thinks that same or can be convinced to think as you do. What appears cool to you might be menacing to another. Your point is well taken.

bearcreek · Jun 30, 2020

Spats McGee said:
Clearly, owning a Dremel does not make one a gunsmith. We've seen some of the crimes committed with Dremels. That said, the court did specifically point to his installing the trigger as one factor in considering the appellant's claim that the shooting was accidental.

It seems that one of the "morals of the story" here is to realize that these decisions will very often be made by people who have little to zero knowledge of firearms or their use. The jury probably won't be your "peers" as far as firearms knowledge goes. Anyone with the tiniest bit of mechanical aptitude can be made to understand in minutes that modifying an AR trigger does not mean in the slightest that the modifier has an "intricate knowledge of firearms", and yet, here's this case.

Perhaps a few more "morals" are that one should strive to maintain cordial relationships, responsibly take care of mental issues, and not flee the scene of a shooting to avoid being caught. Doing those things may very well make modifying an AR trigger no big deal at all.

edwardware · Jun 30, 2020

jmorris said:
“the only person in the room professional enough, that I know of, to carry a glock 40...(bang!)”

That never gets old!

jmorris · Jun 30, 2020

...familiarity with the firearm (from putting in his own trigger) was one of the things the trial court took into account in deciding not to believe his "it was a accident" story.

From a legal standpoint does being familiar with something make you more liable if an accident occurs than if you don’t know anything about it?

Would a licensed surgeon be held more liable if his patient died on a operating table than a guy that doesn’t know what he is doing?

As for this case, if I were a juror, this would have been worse for him than any modifications.

When detective interviewed Appellant, he confessed to shooting the victim but claimed that it was unintentional. The shooting occurred in the kitchen when the couple began to argue after Appellant questioned the victim’s fidelity. During the argument, Appellant pointed his AR-15 at the victim and did not have the safety on the gun.

I suppose he pled guilty to 3rd degree murder because his lawyer thought the same thing.

rbernie · Jun 30, 2020

jmorris said:
From a legal standpoint does being familiar with something make you more liable if an accident occurs than if you don’t know anything about it?

That's not the specific question here. The key seemed to be that Jensen claimed ignorance of how the trigger worked (e.g. this shooting was the result of an ND, and not something more nefarious) and yet had personally worked on the trigger in the past.

Appellant argues that the lower court overemphasized the severity of his offense and did not consider his need for mental health treatment, his lack of remorse, his lack of a criminal record, and his unfamiliarity with the murder weapon.

It would seem to be difficult to assert that the weapon discharged unintentionally because the trigger acted in an unexpected way iff'n the trigger had been replaced / reworked by the shooter in the past.

Frank Ettin · Jun 30, 2020

jmorris said:
...Dropping in a trigger gives one as much intricate knowledge of firearms as changing a tire gives one intricate knowledge of automobiles, yet crashes still happen.

How many neglect/accidental discharges have occurred by people that are familiar with firearms and are just cleaning an “empty” one....

First, it's worthwhile to note that Jensen was only appealing his sentence, not his guilt. He had pleaded guilty to third degree murder (Commonwealth v. Jensen, J-S27043-20 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020), slip op at 3).

Now let's look at exactly what the court said, Jensen, slip op at 8-9, emphasis added:

....The trial court considered Appellant's presentence investigation report as well as the testimony of defense expert, Dr. Frank M. Dattilio, Ph.D., who prepared a psychological evaluation and mitigation report after he interviewed Appellant. Thereafter, the lower court imposed a sentence in the standard range of the sentencing guidelines. As such, the trial court's sentence was appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

Furthermore, contrary to Appellant's suggestion, the trial court specifically stated on the record at sentencing that it considered Appellant's "pervasive" mental health issues, significant rehabilitation needs, his professed remorse, abuse of controlled substances, the absence of a significant criminal record, and his assertion that he accidentally fired the murder weapon. N.T. Sentencing, 5/22/19, at 105-109.

However, the lower court emphasized that Appellant was unwilling to undergo treatment and refused to take prescribed medication for his diagnosed mental health issues. In addition, the lower court found Appellant not credible when he claimed that he was unfamiliar with how to operate the murder weapon as Appellant admitted that he modified the trigger on the AR-15 himself. In light of Appellant's intricate knowledge of the firearm, his tumultuous relationship with the victim, and the fact that he fled the scene to evade apprehension, the trial court reasoned that the possibility that Appellant accidentally pulled the trigger of his firearm was "relatively remote" as his actions were "inconsistent with an innocent person or [a] person who is doing something accidental." N.T. Sentencing, at 103-105. ...

So, as Spats pointed out:

Spats McGee said:
...we should note the interplay of factors here. This defendant had plenty of problems with is credibility (meth, going into hiding, mental illness, etc.), but familiarity with the firearm (from putting in his own trigger) was one of the things the trial court took into account in deciding not to believe his "it was a accident" story. It may have been the straw that broke the (credibility) camel's back....

So the lesson of the case for our purposes is that a modification to a firearm can be a factor contributing to an adverse result.

rbernie · Jun 30, 2020

Frank Ettin said:
So the lesson of the case for our purposes is that a modification to a firearm can be a factor contributing to an adverse result.

More specifically, should this not read:

So the lesson of the case for our purposes is that a modification to a firearm can be a factor contributing to an adverse result if the modification removes some aspect of the potential defense .

It would seem that the modification was irrelevant to all other aspects of the defense outside of the specific claim of unfamiliarity, no?

Frank Ettin · Jun 30, 2020

rbernie said:
...It would seem that the modification was irrelevant to all other aspects of the defense outside of the specific claim of unfamiliarity, no?

Well, the modification not only eroded the claim of unfamiliarity, but the erosion of that claim also in general damaged the defendant's credibility. Or are you suggesting that the only way a modificatio of a gun could adversely affect a defendant would be if he claimed to be unfamiliar with how the gun worked?

I think Spats captured it best when he wrote:

Spats McGee said:
....We should, however, be mindful of the kinds of things that come up in trials and how judges and juries might view them.

rbernie · Jun 30, 2020

Frank Ettin said:
Or are you suggesting that the only way a modificatio of a gun could adversely affect a defendant would be if he claimed to be unfamiliar with how the gun worked?

I'm simply suggesting that a modification was an issue specifically because it eroded a specific claim / defense, which in turn had a second order effect of eroding credibility. It would seem that, absent an intersection of the two notions (modifications and claims), the modified / unmodified state of the firearm is immaterial.

But I'm sure that I'm getting something wrong here, and it is certainly true that nobody knows what claims will be pursued in advance...

Frank Ettin · Jun 30, 2020

rbernie said:
... it is certainly true that nobody knows what claims will be pursued in advance...

That's pretty much the key.

jmorris · Jun 30, 2020

I think Spats captured it best when he wrote:
↑
....We should, however, be mindful of the kinds of things that come up in trials and how judges and juries might view them.

I figured he took the deal and plead guilty to 3rd to avoid the punishment potential of 1st or 2nd because when you are arguing with someone, go retrieve a firearm, loaded, safety off, finger on the trigger and pointed at the person to whom you are arguing with, a judge or a jury might not be sympathetic to you claiming “it was an accident” and would have been an awful gamble for life in prison vs a max of 20 years.

He for sure wouldn’t have wanted me on the jury, even if he had an unmodified firearm. Even if he had a 2oz benchrest trigger, it was the sum of his actions, take any one of them away to the point of actually pulling the trigger and the disaster could have been avoided. In fact if he actually had no intention of committing murder he actually put his own life at risk because she would have been with in her rights to defend herself at that point.

Spats McGee · Jul 1, 2020

rbernie said:
I'm simply suggesting that a modification was an issue specifically because it eroded a specific claim / defense, which in turn had a second order effect of eroding credibility....

I agree with you on the erosion of credibility. The defendant had a whole host of credibility problems, but claiming that he was unfamiliar with a rifle on which he'd changed the trigger out may have tipped the first domino. Sort of a "well, if he lied about this, what else did he lie about?" situation.

Commonwealth of PA v. Jensen

Spats McGee

Moderator

Attachments

jmorris

Member

Spats McGee

Moderator

jmorris

Member

earlthegoat2

Member

Spats McGee

Moderator

dh1633pm

Contributing Member

bearcreek

Member

edwardware

Member

jmorris

Member

rbernie

Contributing Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

rbernie

Contributing Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

rbernie

Contributing Member

Frank Ettin

Moderator

jmorris

Member

Spats McGee

Moderator

Similar threads