ShareThis Page

2 held for arraignments in Munhall gun case

| Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014, 4:46 a.m.

Terrick Smith, 21, of Braddock had a small child in his lap and a loaded gun in his waistband when a station wagon in which he was traveling was stopped earlier this month in Munhall, according to testimony from a borough police officer who initiated the traffic stop.

Smith and his co-defendant, Marquese Underwood, 19, of West Mifflin — who, like Smith, was in the back seat of the car allegedly holding a loaded gun in his waist area when police stopped the vehicle along Whitaker Way on Aug. 13 — appeared before Magisterial District Judge Thomas Torkowsky on Wednesday.

The judge held charges of receiving stolen property, carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded weapon against the pair and they remain in jail awaiting formal arraignments on Oct. 14. Smith additionally is charged with persons not to possess a firearm.

Munhall police Officer James Caterino testified that he and a West Mifflin police officer were working a detail for the state Attorney General's Office when they encountered the station wagon and initiated the stop.

In addition to the defendants and the child, there were two other men and two females in the car, Caterino said. Caterino said he recognized Smith.

“I knew Mr. Smith had a warrant for his arrest,” Caterino said.

He said Smith and Underwood told police they had guns at the time of the stop.

Both weapons had been reported as stolen, Caterino said, though Smith's was not listed on the National Crime Information Center website and was determined later to be missing out of Pittsburgh.

Attorney Carl Marcus, who is representing Smith, argued that a charge of receiving stolen property should be dropped because, in his opinion, “the state failed to show” his client “knew or believed the gun was stolen.”

Marcus was appointed by the court to represent Smith because his co-defendant is being represented by the Allegheny County Public Defender's Office. The public defender cannot represent multiple defendants in the same case because of concerns over conflicts of interest.

Repeating Marcus' argument, public defender George Saba said a charge of receiving stolen property should be dropped against his client.

Prosecutor Jonathan Lusty said the defendants should have assumed they were in possession of stolen weapons.

“They should have known,” he said, referring to the defendants, neither of whom is legally permitted to own a gun. Smith is a convicted felon. Underwood is too young to legally buy a gun.

According to the Pennsylvania State Police's website, those 21 or older may apply for a license to carry firearms.

Lusty said, “You can't buy a gun illegally without assuming it's stolen.”

Saba disagreed with that statement but the judge nevertheless held all charges against the two men.

Torkowsky reduced Smith's bail from $10,000 to a non-monetary amount after his attorney argued that Smith will be held on a state Department of Corrections detainer for a probation violation.

The judge kept Underwood's bail amount at $10,000 despite Saba's efforts to get it reduced on a similar argument. Saba said Underwood was wanted on a detainer from Shuman Juvenile Detention Center and would be sent there if he was released from Allegheny County Jail.

The judge said he is concerned there would be nothing to hold Underwood if the juvenile center were to release the 19-year-old suspect.

Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1966, or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.