290 A.3d 725
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Two separate incidents produced separate dockets: the "Office Case" (Attorney Herb's offices, March 1, 2017) and the "Church Case" (Assumption Church, September 20, 2018).
- Office facts: Coniker had been told by Attorney Herb not to enter the office; after an earlier magistrate appearance where he made weapons-related threats, Coniker entered Herb’s office, yelled that he had a gun, staff fled and called police, and he was arrested.
- Church facts: Coniker had previously been told not to videotape or remove the consecrated host; during Mass he photographed, refused to consume the host, attempted to leave with it, the priest and congregants restrained/surrounded him, police were called and arrested him after resistance.
- Procedural posture: Non-jury trials were held on August 18, 2021; Coniker was convicted of multiple summary offenses (harassment, disorderly conduct, trespass) across both dockets, sentenced to consecutive probation terms, and appealed; appeals were consolidated.
- The court considered mootness under the collateral-consequences doctrine and found the completed probationary sentence did not render the appeals moot.
- Disposition: Office Case convictions affirmed in full; Church Case disorderly conduct conviction affirmed but harassment convictions (two counts) reversed and vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Coniker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — may Coniker appeal after completing probation? | Collateral consequences do not bar review; Commonwealth did not contest mootness. | Completed sentence does not preclude direct appeal; collateral consequences exist. | Not moot: collateral-consequences doctrine applies; appeal proceeds. |
| Office — Harassment (Herb, Knochel): sufficient evidence of intent and course of conduct? | Statements about having a gun and repeated alarming conduct support specific intent and a course of conduct. | No specific intent to harass and insufficient multiple acts to show course of conduct. | Affirmed: intent may be inferred; multiple alarming statements sufficed as a course of conduct. |
| Office — Disorderly Conduct (magistrate and attorney’s office): recklessness/hazardous condition? | Statements about weapons caused lockdown and flight, showing at least recklessness and creation of a hazardous/physically offensive condition. | No intent; conduct did not create hazardous/physically offensive condition. | Affirmed: disorderly conduct proven via recklessness and hazardous condition at each location. |
| Office — Criminal Trespass: knew he was barred and entered to terrorize? | Herb had told Coniker never to return; entering with weapons statements supports intent to terrorize. | No proof of knowledge he was barred; statutory defenses unrebutted. | Affirmed: testimony showed he knew he was not permitted; defenses waived for failing to raise below. |
| Church — Harassment (Chief Sentner, Officer Dold): sufficient intent/course of conduct? | Refusal to surrender host, confrontations, and repeated acts show intent and course of conduct. | Actions were responsive, sought redress or spiritual purpose, and had legitimate purpose; insufficient specific intent to harass. | Reversed: insufficient evidence of specific intent to harass for both harassment counts. |
| Church — Disorderly Conduct (removing/retaining host): recklessness/hazardous condition/no legitimate purpose? | Removing and retaining the consecrated host, refusing directives, and provoking the congregation created a hazardous condition and showed recklessness; no legitimate purpose. | Conduct was morally offensive or religious/spiritual, not criminally hazardous. | Affirmed: evidence supported recklessness and creation of hazardous condition; no legitimate purpose shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Widmer v. Commonwealth, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review).
- Cox v. Commonwealth, 72 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances).
- Lutes v. Commonwealth, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition and temporal scope of "course of conduct").
- Roth v. Commonwealth, 531 A.2d 1133 (Pa. Super. 1987) (creating a hazardous condition by disrupting church services).
- Love v. Commonwealth, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2006) (heightening tension in a courtroom can create hazardous condition for disorderly conduct).
- Wheaton v. Commonwealth, 598 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 1991) (legitimate purpose can preclude harassment conviction).
- Bender v. Commonwealth, 375 A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1977) (constitutionally protected complaints may not constitute harassment).
- Battaglia v. Commonwealth, 725 A.2d 192 (Pa. Super. 1999) (insufficient evidence of intent to harass where acts were responsive rather than provocative).
- Namack v. Commonwealth, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1995) (knowledge of lack of license to enter is required for trespass conviction).
- Markley v. Commonwealth, 501 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Super. 1985) (collateral-consequences doctrine preserves review of completed sentences).
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968) (collateral consequences may keep a criminal appeal from being moot).