Com. v. Pristas, D.
1035 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 13, 2016Background
- On Feb. 19, 2015, Pristas cleared a street parking space and told the victim his wife would be home soon; when she parked there he said, “You’re going to regret the day that you parked in that spot.”
- The victim took the remark as a threat, called the police, and a citation for harassment (18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4)) issued that day.
- A district magistrate convicted Pristas on March 17, 2015; Pristas appealed for de novo review in the Court of Common Pleas.
- At the June 3, 2015 de novo hearing the victim testified about the threat and Pristas essentially admitted making the statement.
- The trial court convicted Pristas of harassment (intent to harass, annoy, or alarm by threatening words) and fined him $500; Pristas appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court declined to dismiss the appeal for briefing defects but limited review to sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether the evidence supports a harassment conviction under § 2709(a)(4) | Commonwealth: victim’s credible testimony that she was threatened and alarmed by Pristas’ statement supports conviction | Pristas: argued multiple procedural and evidentiary errors (pro se brief), contended free speech and hearsay/evidence exclusion issues | Held: Evidence sufficient — Pristas’ admitted words constituted a threat that alarmed the victim; conviction affirmed |
| Preservation/Waiver of constitutional claims | Commonwealth: (implicit) constitutional claims not raised below are waived | Pristas: raised various constitutional claims (Article I, §§7 and 9) for first time on appeal | Held: Court notes issues not raised below are generally waived under Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) and Strunk, but because of briefing defects limited review to sufficiency only |
| Briefing defects / pro se practice | Commonwealth: defects warrant rejection of many issues; Court may dismiss under Pa.R.A.P. 2101 | Pristas: pro se brief raised numerous issues but lacked coherent argument and authorities | Held: Court recognizes substantial defects but exercises discretion not to quash; liberal construction of pro se filings does not excuse failure to develop arguments |
| Evidentiary objections (exclusion/suppression of victim testimony; hearsay) | Commonwealth: victim’s live testimony was admissible and sufficient; no reversible evidentiary error shown | Pristas: contended trial court failed to follow rules of procedure/evidence to permit witnesses, exclude testimony, and that conviction rested on hearsay | Held: Court did not reach detailed evidentiary rulings due to brief’s defects; appellate court reviewed sufficiency and found victim’s testimony (and Pristas’ admission) adequate — no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 932 A.2d 226 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Brewer, 876 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2005) (evidence sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for appellate argument and counsel responsibility)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517 (Pa. 2001) (courts not obliged to develop appellant’s argument)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se litigant receives liberal construction but no special benefit)
- Commonwealth v. Strunk, 953 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues not raised below are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996) (failure to develop argument results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finder of fact may believe some, all, or none of the evidence)