Com. v. Ziegler, R.
Com. v. Ziegler, R. No. 1099 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- On Jan. 26, 2016, Rachel Ziegler and a co-defendant entered Charles Exclusive Furriers after indicating they were customers; they handled merchandise and asked questions.
- Their demeanor shifted to confrontational, referencing the Bible and asking the owner if she was God; the owner repeatedly asked them to leave.
- A physical struggle occurred as the owner attempted to usher them into the lobby; the co-defendant thrust a cell phone at the owner’s face and the owner obtained both defendants’ phones before locking the shop and calling police.
- Police arrived while Ziegler and co-defendant remained in the lobby; Ziegler was charged with and convicted of summary defiant trespass—actual communication (18 Pa.C.S. §3503(b)(1)(i)).
- Ziegler argued on appeal that she lacked the mens rea to trespass (she had been invited in and would have left but for the owner confiscating her phone) and invoked the §3503(c)(2) affirmative defense for premises open to the public; the trial court and Superior Court rejected these claims and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved mens rea for defiant trespass | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence shows Ziegler knew she was not privileged to remain after owner revoked access | Ziegler: she was a lawful invitee and would have left; owner’s confiscation of phone prevented exit, so no criminal intent to remain | Court: Held sufficient evidence of mens rea; Ziegler refused to leave after multiple demands and had entered under false pretenses |
| Whether §3503(c)(2) affirmative defense (premises open to public) applies | Commonwealth: evidence showed invite was a pretext and owner revoked privilege when true purpose emerged | Ziegler: shop was open to public and she complied with lawful conditions, so defense bars conviction | Court: Defense waived on appeal (not raised below); alternatively, facts support denial because owner revoked privilege and refusal to leave was part of harassing plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Namack v. Commonwealth, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1995) (mens rea is an element of defiant trespass and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bullick v. Commonwealth, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the fact-finder)
- Castillo v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
- York v. Commonwealth, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (appellate courts will not entertain new theories raised for first time on appeal)
- Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016) (statutory subsections invalidated under single-subject rule; noted but not outcome-determinative here)