Com. v. Scanlon, J.
619 EDA 2021
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 11, 2022Background
- On December 15, 2018 in Philadelphia, Conway encountered a moving car whose passenger (Scanlon) stared at him and shouted: “F that motherfucker right there; that’s his punk ass; I told you not to fuck with North Philly; I told you I was going to have North Philly come fuck you up.”
- After the verbal exchange, the car paralleled Conway; he entered a store for safety and attempted to record when the driver entered, slapped his phone away, activated it, and a physical altercation ensued in which Conway was struck and sustained minor injuries; Scanlon remained in the vehicle throughout.
- Commonwealth charged Scanlon with terroristic threats, simple assault, and other offenses; at a non-jury trial with Conway as the sole witness, the court convicted Scanlon of terroristic threats and simple assault and acquitted her of the remaining charges.
- Scanlon was sentenced on February 25, 2021 to an aggregate three years’ probation; she filed a defective pro se notice of appeal (wrong date) but the Superior Court declined to quash after counsel clarified the appeal pertained to the judgment of sentence.
- The trial court found Scanlon’s statements constituted a terroristic threat and that she was an accomplice to the driver’s assault by soliciting or encouraging him; Scanlon challenged sufficiency on appeal, and the trial court concluded her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was vague (waiver), but addressed the merits.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient to support Scanlon’s terroristic-threats conviction and, under accomplice liability principles, sufficient to sustain the simple-assault conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Scanlon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats (18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1)) | Scanlon spoke the threat directly to Conway; surrounding conduct (car paralleling, driver pursuing) showed intent to terrorize; conviction proper. | Scanlon asserts the threatening words were directed to the driver or were mere conversation and not a communicated threat to Conway. | Affirmed: statement + circumstances supported a terroristic threat; sufficiency proven. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)) | Scanlon’s words/gestures solicited and encouraged the driver to assault Conway; accomplice liability applies even for non‑substantial aid. | Scanlon argues she was not present in the store and did not commit or attempt physical assault; at most she knew of the assault. | Affirmed: accomplice liability established by circumstantial evidence that Scanlon solicited/encouraged the driver’s attack. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widger, 237 A.3d 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 215 A.3d 972 (Pa. Super. 2019) (elements of terroristic threats)
- Commonwealth v. Anneski, 525 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 1987) (statements evaluated in light of surrounding circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 39 A.3d 310 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements and proof of accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 101 A.3d 28 (Pa. 2014) (non‑substantial assistance can establish accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Roche, 153 A.3d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2017) (vague Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement waives sufficiency claim)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 462 A.2d 859 (Pa. Super. 1983) (court may disregard defective notice of appeal in certain circumstances)