Com. v. Leavy, M., 731 WDA 2019

On April 16, 2018, Mara Amanda Leavy was being discharged from the UPMC emergency department and refused to leave the waiting area after being told the hospital could not provide transport.
When hospital charge nurse Robyn Fabian and UPMC Sgt. Sean Kundrat ordered her to leave, Leavy responded with profanities and, while being escorted out, said: “Fuck you. You won’t be talking shit when I come back and shoot you.”
Sgt. Kundrat attempted to arrest Leavy; she resisted, broke a large sliding door off its track by forcing through it, fled about 20–25 feet, and was eventually restrained; while handcuffed she scratched the sergeant.
Leavy was tried before the court, convicted of terroristic threats and resisting arrest (acquitted on criminal mischief), and sentenced to an aggregate five years’ probation.
She appealed, arguing (1) the terroristic-threats evidence was insufficient because her statement was transitory anger not intent to terrorize, and (2) the resisting-arrest evidence was insufficient because she did not create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
The Superior Court reviewed the sufficiency claims, credited Commonwealth witnesses, and affirmed both convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats (intent to terrorize)	Commonwealth: Leavy’s explicit verbal threat to shoot Fabian—given prior violent interactions and victim fear—permits inference of intent to terrorize.	Leavy: The comment was a spur-of-the-moment expression of transitory anger, not meant to terrorize or seriously impair personal security.	Court: Affirmed—factfinder reasonably inferred intent to terrorize from words and circumstances; intent may be shown circumstantially.
Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (substantial risk or force required)	Commonwealth: Leavy’s force (breaking a large sliding door, fleeing, and scratching the officer) created a substantial risk of injury and required substantial force to subdue.	Leavy: She only pulled away and rushed out for ~45 seconds; did not make violent acts that placed the officer at substantial risk.	Court: Affirmed—breaking the door and continued resistance justified finding of substantial risk and need for substantial force.

Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Fenton, 750 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (threat need not be capable of execution or believed to be executable; harm is invasion of personal security)
Commonwealth v. Kline, 201 A.3d 1288 (Pa. Super. 2019) (statutory elements and scope of terroristic threats)
Commonwealth v. Pasley, 743 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 1999) (specific intent may be inferred from words and circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Chance, 458 A.2d 1371 (Pa. Super. 1983) (intent inference from attendant circumstances)
Commonwealth v. McDonald, 17 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2011) (passive resistance requiring substantial force can sustain resisting-arrest conviction)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 922 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. 2007) (resisting arrest precedent on force and compliance)
Commonwealth v. Rainey, 426 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 1981) (minor scuffling during arrest is insufficient under resisting-arrest statute)