Com. v. Throne, J.
Com. v. Throne, J. No. 1925 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Jared Throne confronted Barry and Susan Epstein at a restaurant where both parties were dining; Throne approached their table after his family left.
- Throne allegedly said repeatedly “I’m going to f--- you up,” referenced an “AK-47,” and told the Epsteins he knew where they lived; a restaurant video and an independent eyewitness corroborated threatening language.
- Throne initially told police he was provoked and denied making gun threats; after being shown evidence he gave a written statement admitting he said “I wish I had an AK to shoot you” and explained longstanding resentment toward the Epsteins’ daughter for past cooperation with police.
- Throne was convicted after a non-jury trial of terroristic threats, disorderly conduct, and harassment and sentenced to one year probation.
- On appeal Throne challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for the terroristic threats conviction, arguing the statements were spur-of-the-moment anger without intent to terrorize.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Throne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established requisite intent for terroristic threats under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1) | Evidence (victims’ testimony, surveillance, witness) shows repeated verbal threats including weapon reference and long-standing motive — supports intent to terrorize | Statements were transient anger, hyperbole, not a settled intent to carry out threats; no evidence he intended to act on them | Court affirmed: totality of circumstances (prior resentment, measured confrontation, corroboration) supports intent to terrorize |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. Commonwealth, 14 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review and that circumstantial evidence may suffice)
- Hartzell v. Commonwealth, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence)
- Koch v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency principles)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 836 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2003) (anger does not preclude intent to terrorize)
- Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (consider totality of circumstances to distinguish heated exchanges from terroristic threats)
- Kidd v. Commonwealth, 442 A.2d 826 (Pa. Super. 1982) (threats uttered in extreme intoxication may lack required intent)
- Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 409 A.2d 888 (Pa. Super. 1988) (chance encounters and heated exchanges may be insufficient to show intent to carry out threats)
- Anneski v. Commonwealth, 525 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 1987) (weight-of-evidence discussion where evidence nonetheless found sufficient)
- Fenton v. Commonwealth, 750 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (intent may be inferred despite anger)