Com. v. Goldman,T.
252 A.3d 668
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Late Jan. 11, 2019: Upper Darby police responded to 911 reports of an intoxicated man causing a disturbance at an Exxon; a caller and the store clerk pointed officers to Appellant inside the store.
- Officer Bennett found Appellant dazed, unsteady, smelling of alcohol, hands in pockets; after being told to turn around Appellant shouted obscenities, ignored commands, and exited the store (officer testified Appellant slammed the door).
- In the parking lot Appellant refused to stop, resisted arrest, kicked and swung at officers; officers used a taser and a canine unit to subdue him; surveillance video showed prolonged erratic behavior (walking in circles, falling, lying down).
- Charges originally included resisting arrest, public drunkenness, and multiple disorderly-conduct counts; Commonwealth later withdrew most charges and proceeded on one disorderly-conduct summary count and public drunkenness (Appellant was acquitted of public drunkenness).
- Trial court denied Appellant’s suppression motion, convicted him of disorderly conduct at a bench trial, imposed a fine, and the Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Goldman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct | Officer testimony, 911 calls, clerk alarm, obscene language, door-slam and escalation to physical melee established act and intent/recklessness under §5503 | Only a few epithets, no physical assault on officer, video allegedly contradicts officer; speech protected by First Amendment | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; court credited officer and found public unruliness and reckless risk of public alarm |
| Video allegedly contradicts officer | Video corroborates erratic and dangerous behavior; court found no particularized inconsistency | Video is incontrovertible proof that officer’s account (e.g., door slam) was false and undermines conviction | Rejected: Appellant waived specific challenge to the video and appellate court defers to factfinder credibility findings |
| Lawfulness of detention/arrest; warrantless arrest under Pa. R. Crim. P. 440 and 42 Pa.C.S. §8902 | 911 reports, clerk identification, Appellant’s intoxicated/dissociative behavior, refusal to comply and violent resistance supplied probable cause and justified warrantless arrest | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause; summary arrest procedures and §8902 did not authorize warrantless arrest here | Affirmed: probable cause existed; arrest lawful and Rule 440 exceptions and §8902 applied given ongoing conduct endangering persons |
| Admissibility of bystanders’ out-of-court statements (hearsay) | Officer’s testimony about caller/clerk explained officer’s course of conduct and fit present-sense-impression exception | Statements were hearsay and improperly considered substantively by the court | Affirmed: statements were admissible to explain officer’s conduct (not hearsay), and alternatively fit present‑sense impression; no abuse of discretion |
| Entitlement to trial de novo after bench trial in court of common pleas | Court of common pleas properly disposed of remaining summary offense after withdrawal of greater charges; parties did not request the court to sit as issuing authority | Judge sat as magisterial district judge and Appellant therefore entitled to trial de novo | Rejected: court was not acting as issuing authority, Appellant waived any right by failing to request the court sit as MDJ; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1999) (disorderly conduct centers on public unruliness and risk of tumult)
- Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 597 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 1991) (statute covers conduct recklessly creating risk of public alarm or inconvenience)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 410 A.2d 1272 (Pa. Super. 1979) (intent can be satisfied by reckless disregard; shouting obscenities at police may support disorderly conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Mastrangelo, 414 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1980) (fighting-words and directed obscenities can support disorderly conduct convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 414 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1980) (out-of-court statements may be admitted to explain an officer’s course of conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Harper, 614 A.2d 1180 (Pa. Super. 1992) (application of present‑sense impression hearsay exception)