Commonwealth v. Cox
72 A.3d 719
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Cox (18) posted a Facebook comment falsely alleging a 15-year-old (Victim) had herpes and made lewd remarks; the post was visible to friends and friends-of-friends and received likes/comments.
- Victim and her mother reported the post; Cox was charged under Pennsylvania's harassment statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4).
- A jury convicted Cox of harassment; she was sentenced to six months probation and filed a timely appeal after post-sentence relief was denied.
- Cox argued the evidence was insufficient because her conduct was wrong but not criminal and sought reversal on weight-of-the-evidence grounds claiming the jury over-relied on Victim’s emotional testimony.
- The trial court found the post intentionally communicated lewd/obscene statements about a minor to others and inferred intent to harass; the appellate court reviewed sufficiency and weight claims and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cox's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support harassment conviction under §2709(a)(4) | Posting was personal, misguided, not criminal; appellant offered no legal sufficiency argument | Post publicly communicated lewd/obscene statements about Victim and intent to harass may be inferred from circumstances | Evidence was sufficient: the FB post conveyed lewd statements about a minor to others and supported an inference of intent to harass |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury improperly credited Victim’s emotional testimony leading to unjust verdict | Jury credibility determinations are for the factfinder; verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock conscience | No abuse of discretion; verdict did not shock the court’s sense of justice and was upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (intent to harass may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 867 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (weight of the evidence is for the factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review of weight claims is limited to abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Aguado, 760 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Wheaton, 598 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 1991) (example where statements had a legitimate non-harassing purpose and did not support harassment intent)
- Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate briefing requirements; court will not develop undeveloped arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to develop issue in brief may result in waiver)