Com. v. Dougba, I.
2063 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- On July 9, 2015, a 13‑year‑old girl (S.H.) was standing on a Darby sidewalk when Isaac Dougba, in a parked truck a few feet away, repeatedly beeped his horn and motioned to her. She did not speak to him and testified she felt scared.
- S.H. began to "speed walk" away; she testified Dougba moved inside the truck as if to get out and grab her, then drove past a gas station near her home and was later seen again near the post office. She called her mother and police during these events.
- A non‑jury summary appeal trial was held; the trial court found Dougba guilty of harassment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(2) (intent to harass, annoy or alarm and follows another in a public place) and fined him $50 plus costs.
- Dougba appealed to the Superior Court, challenging sufficiency of the evidence (lack of criminal intent and that he “followed” S.H.) and arguing his unrebutted good‑character evidence created reasonable doubt.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court opinion: it found S.H. credible, concluded intent could be inferred from the totality of circumstances, and held the evidence that Dougba continued conduct after S.H.’s negative reactions supported a harassment conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Dougba) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — intent to harass/annoy/alarm | Evidence (beeping, motioning, moving as if to grab, driving by) shows intent when viewed in totality | Beeping and flagging without words or assaultive acts cannot establish criminal intent; could have been innocuous | Affirmed: intent may be inferred from totality; evidence sufficient |
| Sufficiency — "follows" in public place | Driving after and appearing near the victim after she fled supports that he followed her in a public place | "Follows" requires pursuit/chase for criminal purpose; mere same‑direction movement insufficient | Affirmed: trial court found conduct satisfied "follows" element |
| Weight of the evidence / credibility | Victim credible; trier of fact entitled to reject character witness; conduct viewed with victim’s fear supports conviction | Unrebutted good‑reputation evidence (honest, law‑abiding, nonviolent) raises reasonable doubt and should have been given weight | Affirmed: weight is for fact‑finder; character witness was unpersuasive; verdict not against conscience |
| Applicability of Wheaton precedent | Wheaton distinguishable (different subsection, different facts, legitimate purpose present there) | Wheaton shows intent must be proven; court should limit harassment to clearly reprehensible instances | Court: Wheaton factually inapposite; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for sufficiency review and fact‑finder deference)
- Commonwealth v. Diaz, 152 A.3d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards for weight‑of‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural note: no post‑sentence motions in summary appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Wheaton, 598 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 1991) (harassment requires proof of intent; discussed limits on statute’s application)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Neely, 561 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1989) (good‑reputation evidence can be probative of reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 801 A.2d 551 (Pa. 2002) (use of dictionary/common meaning when statute terms undefined)
- Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (weight of the evidence reserved to fact‑finder)