Commonwealth v. Beasley
138 A.3d 39
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On April 17, 2012, police stopped a Jeep; driver Jamal Knox (with Beasley as passenger) fled, vehicle disabled; police recovered heroin, cash, cell phones, and a firearm. Beasley later had pending criminal matters involving the officers who responded.
- A YouTube rap video titled “Fuck the Police,” linked from a Facebook account believed to be Beasley’s, contained lyrics threatening Officers Zeltner and Kosko and references to killing cops.
- Beasley and Knox were charged (cases later joined): terroristic threats, intimidation of a witness (attempt), criminal conspiracy, and hindering apprehension/prosecution (related to an incident where Beasley was arrested at his mother’s house and Knox was found hiding in the ceiling).
- At bench trial the court convicted Beasley of two counts each of intimidation of witnesses and terroristic threats, one count of criminal conspiracy, and one count of hindering apprehension; acquitted on retaliation. Sentenced to concurrent terms including 12–36 months for one intimidation count.
- Beasley appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence on all convictions (challenging communication/intent for terroristic threats, intent for witness intimidation, existence of a conspiracy, and knowledge/harboring for hindering apprehension).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Beasley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were terroristic threats proven (communication + intent)? | Video linked to Beasley’s page intentionally communicated threats; lyrics show intent that officers hear message. | Posting on YouTube/Facebook is not a directed communication to officers; no intent or reckless disregard to communicate to them. | Court: Sufficient — Beasley intentionally communicated the threats and officers received them. |
| Were intimidation-of-witness (attempt) convictions supported? | Video threatened officers who were expected to testify; can infer intent to impede testimony. | No proof the video was posted to induce officers to withhold, lie, or not appear; insufficient mens rea. | Court: Sufficient — circumstantial evidence supports intent to interfere with administration of justice. |
| Was criminal conspiracy established? | Making the video together (overt act) and agreeing to threaten officers supports conspiracy to commit terroristic threats/intimidation. | Admits making video but argues jointly making a song is not a crime and shows no agreement to commit criminal acts. | Court: Sufficient — agreement plus overt act (creating/posting video) supports conspiracy conviction. |
| Was hindering apprehension proven (knowledge/harboring)? | Beasley was upstairs, aware police sought Knox; scuff marks and displaced ceiling tile support that Knox was concealed and Beasley knew. | Beasley did not affirmatively conceal or harbor Knox and did not know Knox was in the ceiling; did not lie to police. | Court: Sufficient — reasonable inference Beasley knew Knox was hidden and concealed/harbored him; conviction stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa. Super. 2011) (sufficiency-review standard and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Tizer, 684 A.2d 597 (Pa. Super. 1996) (elements of terroristic threats: threat + intent/recklessness to terrorize)
- In re J.H., 797 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 2002) (ability to carry out threat not an element)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (purpose of terroristic threats statute is to prevent psychological harm to personal security)
- Commonwealth v. Kelley, 664 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1995) (threats can be communicated indirectly)
- Commonwealth v. Cancilla, 649 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 1994) (communication of a threat need not be backed by an actual ability to carry it out)
- Commonwealth v. Collington, 615 A.2d 769 (Pa. Super. 1992) (attempted intimidation may be proven circumstantially; actual intimidation not required)
- Commonwealth v. Haynes, 116 A.3d 640 (Pa. Super. 2015) (harboring a fugitive for one night can support hindering apprehension)
- Commonwealth v. Vergilio, 103 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2014) ("communicates" in terroristic-threats statute contemplates receipt of threat)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (U.S. 2015) (mental-state requirement applies to the element that a communication contains a threat)