Commonwealth v. Wanner, 158 A.3d 714

On Jan. 26, 2016, Crystal Wanner and a companion entered Charles Exclusive Furriers; the owner allowed them in after they said they were customers.
After probing and touching merchandise, their demeanor changed; the owner told them repeatedly to leave when they began confronting her about selling furs and invoking religion.
A scuffle occurred as the owner attempted to usher them out; Wanner thrust her cell phone at the owner, and the owner seized both phones and moved to lock the shop door; all remained in the lobby when police arrived.
Wanner was convicted of Defiant Trespass – Actual Communication (18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(i)) at magisterial court and, after a de novo bench trial in common pleas, was found guilty and sentenced to 90 days probation, costs, and a $200 fine.
On appeal, Wanner raised (1) an affirmative-defense claim under § 3503(c)(2) and (2) insufficiency of the evidence / lack of mens rea; the trial court and Superior Court considered both issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wanner may assert statutory affirmative defense under § 3503(c)(2)	Commonwealth: The defense was waived because it was not raised below or in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement	Wanner: The premises were open to the public and she complied with lawful conditions, so the statutory defense applies	Waived — not preserved at trial or in 1925(b), therefore not considered on appeal
Whether evidence was sufficient to show mens rea for Defiant Trespass	Commonwealth: Evidence (owner’s repeated commands and conduct) supports that Wanner knowingly remained without privilege after actual communication	Wanner: She lacked requisite mens rea because she left when asked and remained only because the owner confiscated her phone	Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, sufficient proof of knowing refusal to leave after repeated commands

Commonwealth v. Vogelsong, 90 A.3d 717 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Namack, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1995) (Defiant Trespass requires knowledge of lack of privilege; good-faith mistake can negate mens rea)
Commonwealth v. Burton, 445 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. 1982) (delay in leaving excused where no reasonable exit existed; factual distinctions noted)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)
Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016) (noting unrelated statutory provision’s invalidation under single-subject rule; cited for context)