ShareThis Page

McKeesport man faces trial in West Mifflin pharmacy armed robbery

| Thursday, May 22, 2014, 3:11 a.m.

A McKeesport man will be tried for the 2012 armed robbery of a West Mifflin pharmacy, but charges were dismissed against his alleged accomplice.

Bobby P. Hast, 34, of McKeesport, is charged with robbery, conspiracy, theft by unlawful taking, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person and firearms violations in the April 13, 2012, holdup of Penn-Taft Pharmacy along Pennsylvania Avenue.

Magisterial District Judge Thomas G. Miller Jr. found a prima facie case existed against Hast, but dismissed charges of robbery and conspiracy against Scott A. May, 41, of Fairbanks, Fayette County, at a Monday preliminary hearing.

He ordered a formal arraignment for Hast in Pittsburgh on July 8 at 11 a.m.

“Although May admitted that he gave Hast a ride to the pharmacy, (Judge) Miller dismissed, saying we could not prove there was an agreement between the two,” said Mike Manko, spokesman for Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr.

The case was moved to Miller's White Oak courtroom on a change of venue from the West Mifflin courtroom of Magisterial District Judge Richard D. Olasz Jr.

It was the second time in a month the two men had a preliminary hearing on robbery charges from 2012. On May 5, charges against Hast and May were held for trial by Magisterial District Judge Beth S. Mills in the holdup at Central Pharmacy along Simpson Howell Road in Elizabeth Township. Hast was charged with multiple counts while May was charged only with robbery and conspiracy.

May is free on bond in the Central Pharmacy case while Hast is in Allegheny County Jail in lieu of $10,000 bond in that case and $100,000 bond in the Penn-Taft case.

Patrick Cloonan is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1967, or pcloonan@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.