With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Commonwealth must demonstrate an item could cause harm before it can qualify as an instrument of crime for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907; harm is not an element of the PIC statute. I would not view Appellant’s argument as narrowly; I believe Appellant has adequately raised a general claim that the plastic soda bottle is not an instrument of a crime. Thus, I would address this claim on the merits. ¶ 2 Further, I would find that the plastic soda bottle is not an instrument of crime as defined by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907. It was certainly not specially made or adapted for criminal use, nor was it possessed by Appellant under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for its lawful uses. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(d)(1) and (2); Commonwealth v. Williams, 808 A.2d 213, 215 (Pa.Super.2002) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 3 Thus, I would reverse Appellant’s

A: holding the mere use of an item to facilitate a crime does not transform the item into an instrument of crime for purposes of the pic statute
B: holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
C: holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder
D: holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc  16
A.