Commonwealth v. McCoy
69 A.3d 658
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- McCoy was convicted in Berks County of disorderly conduct (18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(3)), disrupting a procession (18 Pa.C.S. § 5508), and conspiracy to disrupt a procession (18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1)); sentenced to 2 years' probation and 200 hours of community service.
- On appeal she challenges § 5508 as vague, overbroad, and unconstitutional as applied; argues insufficient evidence; and contends the sentence is excessive.
- Trial occurred June 30, 2011 during a 40–50 vehicle funeral procession for Deputy Kyle Pagerly; McCoy and co-defendant Pruitt walked through/along the procession, shouted profanities, waved a bag, and provoked disgust among onlookers.
- Police diverted from the procession to confront McCoy and Pruitt, and they were arrested for interrupting a procession and disorderly conduct.
- The Majority (Ott, J.) affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for resentencing, determining § 5508 is not vague or overbroad as applied, there is sufficient evidence for disrupting a procession and conspiracy, but the disorderly conduct conviction under § 5503(a)(3) is vacated; a new sentencing hearing is ordered within 45 days of the record.
- There exists a concurring/dissenting opinion by Strassburger, J., arguing § 5508 should be held unconstitutional and that the disruption and conspiracy convictions lack sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge to § 5508 vagueness/overbreadth | McCoy asserts § 5508 is vague and overbroad, criminalizing protected speech. | McCoy argues the statute ambiguously defines actus reus/mens rea, enabling arbitrary enforcement. | Statute not vague or overbroad as applied; balance of protected rights maintained. |
| Sufficiency of § 5508 evidence | McCoy contends there was insufficient evidence to disrupt a procession. | Commonwealth posits actions disturbed the procession and caused official response. | Sufficient evidence to support § 5508 conviction. |
| Sufficiency of § 5503(a)(3) disorderly conduct | Conviction under § 5503(a)(3) rests on obscene language; no substantial obscenity. | Actions, including shouting, constitute disorderly conduct. | Conviction under § 5503(a)(3) vacated; not supported by obscene-language standard. |
| Conspiracy conviction validity | McCoy conspired with Pruitt to disrupt the procession. | Sufficient joint intent and overt acts established conspiracy. | Conspiracy conviction upheld (subject to remand with other vacatur). |
| Discretionary sentence on remand | Sentence should reflect vacatur of § 5503 conviction. | Remand for new sentencing appropriate after vacatur. | Remand for resentencing ordered; current sentence moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Davidson, 938 A.2d 198 (Pa. 2007) (vagueness and overbreadth standards applied to criminal statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Bryner, 652 A.2d 909 (Pa. Super. 1995) (obscenity standard under disorderly conduct; Miller framework)
- Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (fighting words analysis; context matters)
- Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002) (fighting words and protected speech distinctions)
- Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) (First Amendment; vagrancy-type laws; limits on enforcement)
- Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965) (heckler’s veto and overbreadth concerns; First Amendment policing limits)
- Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (speech protected when not directed at an individual; fighting words constrained by context)