Com. v. Green-Webb, T.
391 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2022Background
- On Feb. 10, 2020, Avalon police responded to a construction no-parking zone; Joyce Automotive tow operator arrived to remove a vehicle registered to Appellant Travis Green‑Webb.
- Appellant emerged from a nearby residence, screamed profanities, claimed extortion over a $50 "show-up" fee, postured and clenched his fists, and jumped into the driver’s seat intending to drive away.
- Officers ordered him out; he refused, was forcibly removed, pulled away from officers while being handcuffed, continued to shout obscenities at officers and bystanders, and was arrested.
- At a non‑jury trial the parties stipulated to the police affidavit as sole evidence; Appellant was acquitted of resisting arrest but convicted of three disorderly conduct counts under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1), (3), and (4).
- The trial court sentenced Appellant to three days (time served) on the (a)(1) count and no further penalty on the other counts; Appellant appealed challenging sufficiency and grading of the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct under §5503(a)(1) ("tumultuous behavior") | Commonwealth: Appellant's yelling, posturing, attempts to drive off, and physical resistance incited a tumult and endangered public peace. | Appellant: Conduct was loud and profane but not tumultuous as a matter of law. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for (a)(1); conduct was tumultuous. Court reduced the offense to a summary level. |
| 2) Whether grading as a third‑degree misdemeanor under §5503(b) (intent to cause substantial harm/serious inconvenience) | Commonwealth: argued for misdemeanor grading based on the disorderly conduct and resistance creating public risk. | Appellant: No evidence of intent to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience or of prolonged persistence after warning. | Held: Insufficient evidence to grade as third‑degree misdemeanor under §5503(b); cannot show substantial harm/serious inconvenience. |
| 3) Sufficiency under §5503(a)(3) ("obscene language") | Commonwealth: relied on affidavit describing repeated profanities toward officers and bystanders. | Appellant: Words were profane and angry but not legally "obscene" under the Miller test. | Vacated: language did not meet the legal definition of obscenity; conviction under (a)(3) vacated. |
| 4) Sufficiency under §5503(a)(4) ("creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition") | Commonwealth: argued tirade and struggle created a hazardous condition. | Appellant: No evidence anyone or property was put at risk or prevented from acting. | Vacated: evidence insufficient to show creation of a hazardous or physically offensive condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2006) (adopts dictionary definition of "tumultuous" for §5503(a)(1) analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93 (Pa. 2008) (§5503(b) grading focuses on offender's intent to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience)
- Commonwealth v. Pennix, 176 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2017) (angry words unrelated to sex insufficient for §5503(a)(3) obscenity)
- Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1999) (profane insults do not satisfy obscenity under §5503(a)(3); Miller test application)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (establishes the three‑part test for obscenity referenced in §5503(a)(3) analysis)