Com. v. Donahue, S., Com. v. Donahue, S. No. 1469 MDA 2016

Appellant Sean M. Donahue sent four emails (Nov 26–29, 2014) to ~50 recipients, including Commonwealth employees, complaining about denied veteran-preference employment and invoking violent imagery (guns, militia) and wishing recipients "terrible tragedies."
Two recipients (Sauder, McMillan) testified they were alarmed, fearful, and escalated the matter to supervisors and police.
Appellant was charged with one count of terroristic threats and two counts of harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4)); jury deadlocked on terroristic threats but convicted on the two harassment counts; terroristic-threat charge was nolle prossed.
Trial court sentenced Appellant to two consecutive one-year terms of probation; post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law and appeal followed.
Appellant argued (1) speech was protected (not "true threats") so evidence was insufficient, and (2) double jeopardy/multiplicity barred separate sentences for the two harassment counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether emails were unprotected speech (true threats) supporting harassment convictions	Commonwealth: emails contained threatening, violent imagery and language that intended to alarm recipients; victims were alarmed	Donahue: language did not amount to a "true threat" and was protected political/grievance speech	Held: Sufficient — language (references to guns, militia, "punishment," wishing tragedies) could be read to intend to alarm and fall within §2709(a)(4); not protected as true threats.
Multiplicity / double jeopardy: whether separate sentences for two harassment counts violated merger rules	Commonwealth: each distinct email constituted an independent criminal act supporting separate convictions/sentences	Donahue: counts are redundant; same conduct charged twice	Held: No violation — distinct emails (different statements/recipients) were separate acts; merger inapplicable.

Commonwealth v. Baker, 722 A.2d 718 (Pa. Super. 1998) (defines "true threat" as unequivocal, immediate, specific, conveying gravity of purpose and imminent execution)
Commonwealth v. Walls, 144 A.3d 926 (Pa. Super. 2016) (harassment conviction sustainable where verbal abuse caused victim alarm though no physical contact)
Commonwealth v. Petterson, 49 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. 2012) (multiple distinct criminal acts avoid merger for sentencing)
In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (de novo review appropriate for legal questions concerning constitutional claims)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)