Commonwealth v. Mauz
122 A.3d 1039
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Gary Mauz shouted brief obscene remarks (e.g., “whore,” comments about the neighbor’s mother) from his yard toward neighbor Victoria Battistini, who was in her private backyard near a fire pit on the evening of April 24, 2013.
- The properties were separated by a 5–6 foot fence; only Battistini (and her guests) were positioned to hear the remarks; no evidence others heard them.
- Mauz pled guilty before a Magisterial District Judge to disorderly conduct under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(3) (obscene language) on October 29, 2013 and appealed for a de novo trial.
- At the de novo trial the court found Mauz guilty instead under § 5503(a)(4) (creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition) and imposed a $50 fine and costs on June 20, 2014.
- On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence as to § 5503(a)(4) and vacated the judgment of sentence, concluding the Commonwealth failed to prove a public risk or physically offensive condition.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Mauz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under § 5503(a)(4) (creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition affecting the public) | Mauz’s shouted obscene remarks created a physically offensive condition or risk to the public warranting conviction under (a)(4) | Remarks were made in a private-to-private setting; only Battistini discernible heard them; no public risk or danger was created | Reversed—insufficient evidence; no showing of public annoyance, risk of public disorder, or physically offensive condition as defined by precedent |
| Whether it was error to try Mauz under § 5503(a)(4) when he pled guilty to § 5503(a)(3) at summary hearing | (Not reached) | Argued trial court erred by proceeding under a different subsection than the plea | Not decided by the Court of Common Pleas or Superior Court (court declined to address given disposition) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rahman, 75 A.3d 497 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2005) (brief, isolated obscene outburst at a neighbor did not disturb the public peace)
- Commonwealth v. Forrey, 108 A.3d 895 (Pa. Super. 2015) (insufficient proof of unreasonable noise where only an officer heard defendant’s cursing in a remote location)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 574 A.2d 1161 (Pa. Super. 1990) (definition of hazardous/physically offensive condition; examples include odors, blinding lights, invasion of physical privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Roth, 531 A.2d 1133 (Pa. Super. 1987) (threats to disrupt a public church service created public alarm and hazardous potential)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 535 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 1988) (invasion of physical privacy in a dormitory restroom can constitute a physically offensive condition)