Commonwealth v. Pennix
176 A.3d 340
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 28, 2015, Pennix attempted to enter the Allegheny County Family Court; a metal detector alarmed and deputies found a folding pocketknife (2" blade) and two razor blades in her backpack.
- Deputies asked Pennix to remove the items; she had difficulty locating them, became argumentative, and shouted profanities at deputies. She refused to leave until escorted and was arrested.
- Pennix was tried in a bench trial (Oct. 6, 2016), convicted of possessing a dangerous weapon in a court facility (18 Pa.C.S. § 913(a)(1)) and disorderly conduct by obscene utterances (18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(3)), and sentenced to six months probation.
- Post‑sentence motion denied; Pennix appealed arguing insufficient evidence on both counts and challenging the trial court’s post‑verdict claim of judicial notice about courthouse layout and signage.
- The Commonwealth conceded potential weaknesses on both convictions: whether the items met § 913(f)’s definition of dangerous weapon and whether Pennix’s profanities qualified as legally obscene under § 5503(a)(3).
- The Superior Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and the legal definitions applicable to "dangerous weapon" and "obscene language."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pennix) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: weapon in court facility (§ 913) | Knife and razor blades were not § 913(f) "dangerous weapons" (pocketknife is manual; razor blades have lawful uses); no proof she knew they were there | Trial court found knife/razors qualified as dangerous weapons and sustained conviction | Reversed — insufficient evidence to show items met § 913(f) definitions or lacked common lawful purpose |
| Judicial notice of courthouse layout/signage | Trial court’s post‑verdict claim of sua sponte judicial notice was improper and not raised at trial; parties deprived of chance to respond | Trial court asserted it had taken judicial notice of layout and signage in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 opinion | Court did not resolve because convictions reversed on sufficiency grounds (issue unnecessary to decide) |
| Sufficiency: disorderly conduct (§ 5503(a)(3)) | Her profane shouts at deputies were not "obscene language" under the Miller test and lacked evidence of intent to cause public alarm | Trial court treated repeated profanities toward deputies as obscene/ disorderly conduct | Reversed — profanity alone not "obscene" under § 5503(a)(3); record lacked intent to cause public inconvenience/ alarm |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitacre, 878 A.2d 96 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 69 A.3d 658 (Pa. Super. 2013) (profanity chanting not obscene under § 5503(a)(3))
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 758 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Miller test applies to "obscene" language under § 5503(a)(3))
- Commonwealth v. Bryner, 652 A.2d 909 (Pa. Super. 1995) (adopting Miller obscenity criteria for disorderly‑conduct obscenity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1999) (distinguishing profane speech from conduct that creates immediate breach of the peace)
- Commonwealth v. Mauz, 122 A.3d 1039 (Pa. Super. 2015) (disorderly conduct not a catchall for annoyances)