ShareThis Page
Allegheny

4 plead guilty in 2017 killing over stolen bong

Megan Guza
| Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2018, 3:45 p.m.
Gregg Scholze, Kayla Naper, John Pignanelli
Gregg Scholze, Kayla Naper, John Pignanelli
Daijon Arnett
Daijon Arnett
Kayle Stauber
Kayle Stauber

Three men and one woman pleaded guilty Wednesday to their role in the 2017 killing of an Avalon man that stemmed from a stolen marijuana bong.

Gregg Scholze, 21, pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree murder as the triggerman in the January 2017 shooting of Kyle Stauber, according to the District Attorney’s Office. In exchange for the plea, he was sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison.

Three others — John Pignanelli, Kayla Naper and Daijon Arnett — pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

Scholze, Naper and Pignanelli, all from West View, were arrested in the days following the shooting, according to police. Arnett was charged more than a year later, in May 2018.

Naper told investigators she drove the three men to Stauber’s home the night of the shooting because of a dispute over a bong they believed belonged to Naper, according to the criminal complaint.

Witnesses in the home with Stauber said they were in the living room when three men burst in and announced they were being robbed. They made off with a video game console, games, three glass bongs and pipes, a wallet and a cellphone.

Scholze shot and killed Sauber during the robbery. All four were originally charged with homicide.

Pignanelli, 27, Naper, 21, and Arnett, 22, pleaded guilty to robbery and conspiracy. In exchange for his plea, Pignanelli was sentenced to seven to 16 years in prison, plus 10 years of probation. Naper and Arnett were sentenced to 3 ½ to seven years in prison and five years of probation.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, mguza@tribweb.com or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.

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.

click me