Com. v. Sundo, M., 2015 WDA 2015

On March 18, 2015, Matthew F. Sundo (appellant) repeatedly called and banged on the walls/door of neighbor Lauren Foster for several hours while Foster was home with her young children.
During one call, appellant told Foster to "shut the f’g baby up" and threatened to come over and kill her and her baby. Foster was terrified.
Foster’s boyfriend, Anthony DiGristina, went outside to confront appellant. Appellant emerged wearing a hospital gown and a tactical-style vest, wielding a roughly 3-foot baton and acting belligerent and intoxicated.
Appellant threatened to kill DiGristina while advancing with the baton; DiGristina threw a wicker chair that struck appellant. A neighbor observed appellant holding what looked like a knife; police then arrested appellant.
A jury convicted appellant of terroristic threats (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1)), simple assault, and harassment. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 4–8 months’ incarceration (credit for time served and immediate parole) plus 18 months’ probation. Appellant appealed, arguing insufﬁcient evidence for terroristic threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support terroristic threats conviction	Commonwealth: Threats to kill Foster and DiGristina, made amid repeated calls/banging and while appellant wielded a baton and advanced, showed intent to terrorize or reckless disregard	Sundo: Threats were spur-of-the-moment, heat-of-confrontation anger, not intended to terrorize	Court: Evidence sufficient as to both victims — Foster’s sustained harassment and explicit kill threat supported intent/recklessness; DiGristina’s proximate threat while armed with a baton showed present ability and intent to terrorize

Commonwealth v. Leatherby, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Sinnott, 976 A.2d 1184 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (elements of terroristic threats: threat plus intent to terrorize or reckless disregard)
Commonwealth v. Tizer, 684 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (purpose of terroristic threats statute is prevention of psychological distress; belief in ability to carry out threat not required)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016) (discussing terroristic threats elements and intent standard)
In re J.H., 797 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (clarifying that ability/belief in carrying out threat is not an element)
Commonwealth v. Hudgens, 582 A.2d 1352 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (threats accompanied by a weapon can support intent to terrorize)