Com. v. Zinser, M.
707 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Defendant Matthew J. Zinser was convicted by a jury of terroristic threats (18 Pa.C.S. §2706(a)(1)) and criminal mischief; sentenced to 9–23 months for terroristic threats (concurrent probation for mischief). Appeal challenges sufficiency on terroristic threats.
- Incident: late-night July 3–4, 2015 dispute at shared residence between Zinser and victim/fiancée Andrea Todd; both had been drinking and had ongoing trust/infidelity issues.
- Todd testified Zinser put his hand by her throat in the bathroom and said, “I could just kill you,” then later took and broke her phone; she left, went to her mother’s house, and called police. Photographs of scratches and redness were admitted.
- Todd gave an audio statement to police describing multiple physical contacts; at trial she characterized the phrase as angry hyperbole and equivocated about intent and memory.
- Officer observed redness/scratches on Todd’s neck; Zinser admitted taking/destroying the phone but denied choking or intending to kill Todd and described acting out of a dream and anger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove terroristic threats (intent to terrorize) | Commonwealth: testimony, physical positioning (hands by throat), destruction of phone, scratches, victim fleeing and calling police support inference of intent to terrorize | Zinser: statement was spur-of-the-moment anger/transitory intoxicated utterance without intent to terrorize; comparable to cases where threats were hyperbole | Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, totality of circumstances supported jury inference of intent to terrorize |
Key Cases Cited
- Tizer v. Commonwealth, 684 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1996) (elements of terroristic threats: threat plus intent to terrorize or reckless disregard)
- In re J.H., 797 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2002) (ability to carry out threat or victim belief not required)
- Beasley v. Commonwealth, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. 2016) (review of terroristic-threats mens rea and intent)
- Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (totality of circumstances for mens rea)
- Walker v. Commonwealth, 836 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2003) (anger does not preclude formation of intent to terrorize)
- Kidd v. Commonwealth, 442 A.2d 826 (Pa. Super. 1982) (threatening hyperbole insufficient for intent to terrorize)
- Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 409 A.2d 888 (Pa. Super. 1979) (angry threats over dispute insufficient absent evidence of intent to cause extreme fear)
- Fenton v. Commonwealth, 750 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (sustaining conviction where threats were prolonged, sweeping, and reflected premeditation)