Com. v. Stix, J.
1617 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Victim Betty Gladney lived near appellant Jim Stix; on Oct. 14, 2014 she observed him in front of her house swinging a club-like object and kicking at her walkway while using profane language.
- Gladney and relatives confronted Stix; he called them “B’s” and “MF’ers” and shouted that no one could tell him where to walk; police responded multiple times that day but did not arrest him.
- After police left, Stix returned, swung the object and shouted “Anybody want to die tonight? You want to die tonight, bitch?” while the victim stood on her front porch; the victim called police multiple times.
- Prior antagonistic conduct included spitting, photographing, distributing derogatory letters about the victim (e.g., “the lying bitch will pay”), and installing a camera aimed at her home.
- Municipal Court convicted Stix of terroristic threats and harassment; on appeal to common pleas he was acquitted of terroristic threats and convicted of harassment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1); sentenced to 90 days probation; Stix appealed sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Stix's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1) (harassment by threatening or attempting physical harm) | The evidence (swinging a club-like object near victim, direct shouted threats, prior harassing conduct) permitted a factfinder to conclude Stix intended to harass/ alarm the victim. | Words/actions were not directed at the victim with requisite mens rea; conduct was not threatening enough; alternative explanations (provocation) exist. | Affirmed: viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the facts supported harassment conviction and intent could be inferred from totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Colon-Plaza, 136 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Robertson-Dewar, 829 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006) (credibility determinations belong to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 848 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same)
- Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2009) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (totality of circumstances for intent to harass)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 559 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 1989) (knowledge of consequences may support inference of intent)
- Commonwealth v. Kozinn, 552 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Super. 1989) (intent inference principles)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (do not reweigh evidence on appeal)