Com. v. Barton, F.
Com. v. Barton, F. No. 667 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Barton remained in his apartment after landlord gave tenants notice to vacate by June 30, 2015; locks were changed July 1 and other tenants left.
- Barton posted a note on his door reading "Will be out soon."
- On July 3, building manager Vincent Taliercio, identifying himself, used a key to open Barton's door to discuss staying longer.
- As soon as Taliercio opened the door, Barton struck him with a sledgehammer; Taliercio pushed Barton back, closed the door, and called police.
- Police arrived, used a key to open the door, and removed Barton with resistance; Taliercio sustained injury to his hand/back.
- Following a one-day bench trial Barton was convicted of summary harassment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1) and sentenced to 45–90 days’ incarceration; he appealed claiming insufficient evidence of intent to harass, annoy, or alarm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Barton intended to "harass, annoy, or alarm" Taliercio when he struck him with a sledgehammer | Commonwealth: totality of circumstances (remaining in unit, note on door, Taliercio identified himself, Barton struck when door opened) supports an inference of intent | Barton: he struck because he was angry/upset that an unknown person opened his door, not to harass, annoy, or alarm | Affirmed — court found a fact‑finder could infer intent to harass from the circumstances and uphold harassment conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Harden, 103 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency-of-evidence standards)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to harass can be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (physical contact with intent to harass found where defendant grabbed and assaulted victim)
- Commonwealth v. Kirwan, 847 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. 2004) (intent to alarm inferred where defendant lifted and threw spouse)
- Commonwealth v. Battaglia, 725 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. 1999) (distinguishes harassment requiring course of conduct; isolated or de minimis acts insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Showalter, 418 A.2d 580 (Pa. Super. 1980) (discusses harassment as separate inquiry from assault in jury instruction context)