In Commonwealth v. Headley, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence of his convictions for recklessly endangering another person (REAP) and discharging a firearm into an occupied structure. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. The evidence was sufficient for REAP because the appellant intentionally discharged his firearm into the floor of his apartment. The bullet passed through the appellant’s apartment floor and through the ceiling of the apartment below. The apartment below was occupied, and the bullet passed within four feet of the victim. In his second issue, the appellant argued that he could not be convicted of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure because, though they lived in separate units, the appellant and the victim lived in the same building. Thus, the appellant claimed, he did not fire into an occupied structure. The Court disagreed and ruled, “Separate apartments within one building are distinguishable from separate areas of a restaurant or separate rooms within a single dwelling.”
