Com. v. Kauffman, B., Jr. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J. S36024/16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :          PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                      :
    :
    BARRY LEE KAUFFMAN, JR.                     :
    :
    Appellant         :     No. 1632 MDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 31, 2015
    In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
    Criminal Division No(s): CP-67-CR-0005881-2014
    BEFORE: MUNDY, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
    MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                                FILED JULY 22, 2016
    Appellant, Barry Lee Kauffman, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
    sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County after a jury
    convicted Appellant of Terroristic Threats and the trial court found Appellant
    guilty of the summary offense of Public Drunkenness.1 After careful review,
    we affirm the conviction for Terroristic Threats but vacate the conviction for
    Public Drunkenness because the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient
    evidence that Appellant was in a public place while intoxicated.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    The factual and procedural history is as follows.      On July 26, 2014,
    Michael Boyd and his wife Holly Boyd returned to their home from a day trip
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505, respectively.
    J.S36024/16
    with Mr. Boyd’s son Mikey around 10:00 PM. (N.T., Trial, 7/20/15, at 48,
    66). As they exited the car, Appellant, who was their next-door neighbor,
    stood on his porch and yelled obscenities at the family. Id. at 48-49, 66-67.
    During testimony, Mr. and Mrs. Boyd both recalled that Appellant blamed
    them for testifying against him a month or two earlier in an eviction
    proceeding.   Id. at 48-49, 67.   Appellant proceeded to walk off his porch
    and approached Mr. Boyd face-to-face on the property line between the two
    neighboring yards. Id. at 59-60, 68. Ms. Boyd testified that Appellant also
    came “into our driveway.” Id. at 68, 70. Mr. Boyd testified that Appellant
    yelled “he was going to burn our fucking house down with our child in it.”
    Id. at 51. Mrs. Boyd testified that Appellant “looked at me and Mikey and
    said that I’ll burn your fucking house down with your family in it.” Id. at 68.
    At some point, Mr. Boyd told Appellant that there was a no trespassing sign
    on Mr. Boyd’s property, to “please leave him and his family alone,” and that
    he was going to call the police. Id. at 60, 68. Mr. and Mrs. Boyd observed
    that Appellant appeared to be intoxicated, had “slurred speech,” and “was
    swaying around quite a lot.” Id. at 61, 68. The Boyd family entered their
    home and called the police. Id. at 51-52, 68-69. Mrs. Boyd testified that
    once inside, Mikey was “very shook up…he was crying and upset and asked
    me if [Appellant] was going to kill us by burning our house down.” Id. at
    68-69.   Responding police officer John Biesecker observed that Appellant
    was “very intoxicated. He had glassy, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.
    -2-
    J.S36024/16
    He also had great trouble maintaining his balance.       He was continuously
    swaying back and forth.” Id. at 73. Appellant admitted to Officer Biesecker
    that he was “buzzed.” Id.
    On July 21, 2015, a jury convicted Appellant of Terroristic Threats and
    the trial court found Appellant guilty of Public Drunkenness. Trial Ct. Op.,
    filed 12/23/15, at 3.      On August 31, 2015, the trial court sentenced
    Appellant to a term of six to twelve months’ incarceration for the Terroristic
    Threats conviction and ordered Appellant to pay a $150 fine for the Public
    Drunkenness conviction. Id. at 3-4.
    Appellant filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion, which the trial court
    denied on September 14, 2015. On September 22, 2015, Appellant filed a
    timely Notice of Appeal.    Appellant and the trial court both complied with
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
    ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
    Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
    1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence in
    order to convict Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt of Terroristic
    Threats because Appellant’s threatening statement was spur-of-the-
    moment as a result of transitory anger and a product of a heated
    exchange?
    2. Whether the guilty verdict for Terroristic Threats is against the weight
    of the evidence because the circumstances giving rise to Apellant’s
    threatening statement indicate it was made spur-of-the-moment as a
    result of transitory anger and a product of a heated exchange?
    3. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence in
    order to convict Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt of Public
    -3-
    J.S36024/16
    Drunkenness because Appellant was not in a public place while
    intoxicated?
    Appellant’s Brief at 5.
    LEGAL ANALYSIS
    Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
    conviction for Terroristic Threats. This is a question of law; the standard of
    review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth
    v. Ratsamy, 
    934 A.2d 1233
    , 1235 (Pa. 2007).             “When reviewing the
    sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the
    evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the
    light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient
    to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Commonwealth v. Weiss, 
    776 A.2d 958
    , 963 (Pa. 2001) (citation
    omitted). Further, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed:
    [T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth
    need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts
    regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder
    unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter
    of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined
    circumstances. . . . Moreover, in applying the above test, the
    entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
    received must be considered.      Finally, the trier of fact while
    passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
    evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the
    evidence.
    Ratsamy, supra at 1236 n. 2.
    -4-
    J.S36024/16
    The crime of making a terroristic threat is defined by statute as
    follows: “[a] person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person
    communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to [] commit any crime
    of violence with intent to terrorize another. . . .” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1).
    To obtain a conviction for making a terroristic threat, the Commonwealth
    must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) Appellant
    made a threat to commit a crime of violence; and (2) Appellant
    communicated the threat with the intent of terrorizing or with reckless
    disregard for the risk of causing terror. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 
    625 A.2d 1215
    , 1219 (Pa. Super. 1993).
    There is little dispute that Appellant yelled a threatening statement to
    commit a crime of violence. The Commonwealth presented uncontroverted
    testimony that Appellant yelled at the Boyd family that he was going to
    “burn [their] fucking house down” with their child and family in it.   (N.T.,
    Trial, at 51, 68). This Court has held that a threat to destroy property by
    fire is a threat to commit a crime of violence under this Section. See, e.g.,
    Commonwealth v. Speller, 
    458 A.2d 198
    , 201 (Pa. Super 1983).
    Therefore, Appellant’s verbal threat to commit a crime of violence clearly
    satisfies the first element of Terroristic Threats. See Campbell, 
    supra at 1219
    ; see also Speller, supra at 201.
    Appellant’s argument that the Commonwealth failed to present
    sufficient evidence to convict him of Terroristic Threats because his
    -5-
    J.S36024/16
    “threatening statement was spur-of-the-moment as a result of transitory
    anger and a product of a heated exchange” is essentially a challenge to
    whether Appellant had the requisite intent to terrorize the Boyd family.
    Appellant’s Brief at 12.
    To determine whether Appellant had the requisite intent, we must
    examine the surrounding circumstances. This Court has held that “a spur-
    of-the-moment threat resulting from transitory anger” after a heated
    exchange between two neighbors lacked the requisite intent for a Terroristic
    Threats conviction. See Commonwealth v. Anneski, 
    525 A.2d 373
    , 376
    (Pa. Super. 1987) (holding defendant lacked the requisite intent when
    defendant threatened to get gun and use it on neighbor because surrounding
    circumstances indicated that statement was spur-of-the-moment threat
    resulting from transitory anger prompted by neighbor's threat to hit
    defendant's children with her car if they obstructed her vehicle's passage).
    However, this Court has rejected arguments that a threat resulted in “the
    spur-of-the-moment” when the threat involved a “planned . . . method of
    attack” which “indicated a settled intent to terrorize.” See In re L.A., 
    853 A.2d 388
    , 392 (Pa. Super. 2004) (evidence was sufficient to support
    adjudication of delinquency for making terroristic threats; L.A.’s threat that
    she would kill her caseworker by hiring a man dressed in a black outfit to
    wait for the caseworker behind the caseworker's silver Neon supports a
    -6-
    J.S36024/16
    finding that L.A. had planned a method of attack and indicated a settled
    intent to terrorize).
    In the instant case, the trial court concluded, “[Appellant’s] threat
    circumstantially showed his settled intent to terrorize the victims when, in
    expressing his desire to burn the victim’s house down with the family inside,
    he displayed that he planned a method of attack.” Trial Ct. Op. at 7. We
    agree.
    Further, while Appellant argues that his threatening statements were
    the result of a heated exchange between him and Mr. Boyd, the trial court
    concluded, “little evidence was introduced to show that [Appellant] was
    engaged in a heated exchange with the victims prior to making the threat.”
    Trial Ct. Op. at 8. Mr. and Mrs. Boyd returned home, exited their vehicle,
    and Appellant immediately confronted the couple yelling “obscenities” at
    them from his porch.       (N.T., Trial, at 48-49, 66-67).      The trial court
    accurately opined:
    While Michael Boyd agreed that he and [Appellant] were
    “arguing face-to-face’ the testimony introduced at trial showed
    that Michael Boyd directed very few statements toward
    [Appellant] during the brief encounter. Specifically, Michael
    Boyd told [Appellant] that there were “no trespassing” signs on
    his property, and he was going to call the police. Holly Boyd
    testified that her husband additionally told Defendant to leave
    his family alone. Thus, any characterization of the events of July
    26, 2015, as a “heated exchange” seems to stretch the meaning
    of that phrase.
    Trial Ct. Op. at 8-9 (emphasis in original, internal citations omitted).
    -7-
    J.S36024/16
    Accordingly, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    Commonwealth, we find that the trial court correctly determined that
    Appellant and Mr. Boyd were not engaged in a heated exchange, that
    Appellant did not make the threatening statement “spur-of-the-moment” as
    a result of “transitory anger,” that Appellant had the requisite intent to
    terrorize, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of
    Terroristic Threats.
    Appellant next challenges the weight of the evidence supporting his
    conviction for Terroristic Threats. The standard of review is as follows:
    A motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was against the
    weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial
    court. An appellate court, therefore, reviews the exercise of
    discretion, not the underlying question whether the verdict is
    against the weight of the evidence. The factfinder is free to
    believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the
    credibility of the witnesses. The trial court will award a new trial
    only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to
    shock one's sense of justice. In determining whether this
    standard has been met, appellate review is limited to whether
    the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised, and relief will
    only be granted where the facts and inferences of record disclose
    a palpable abuse of discretion.
    Commonwealth v. Cousar, 
    928 A.2d 1025
    , 1035-36 (Pa. 2007). Further,
    this Court will give the “gravest consideration to the findings and reasons
    advanced by the trial [court]” because the trial court had the opportunity to
    hear and see the evidence presented.       Commonwealth v. Widmer, 
    744 A.2d 745
    , 753 (Pa. 2000).
    -8-
    J.S36024/16
    Here, the trial court determined that “the verdict of guilty was not
    against the weight of the evidence as the jury’s verdict was not so contrary
    to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Trial Ct. Op. at 9-10.
    The record supports the trial court’s findings and we find no abuse of
    discretion.
    Lastly, Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict
    Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt of Public Drunkenness because
    Appellant was not in a public place while intoxicated. We agree.
    The      Pennsylvania   Crimes    Code    defines    the    crime   of   Public
    Drunkenness, in relevant part, as follows: “A person is guilty of a summary
    offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of
    alcohol.”     18 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (emphasis added).         It is not in dispute that
    Appellant had been drinking alcohol that night; he even admitted to Officer
    Biesecker that he was “buzzed.”        (N.T., Trial, at 73).     Therefore, the only
    question before this court is whether Appellant was in a “public place.”
    Section 5505 does not define the term “public.” This Court, however,
    has observed that the Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines the term in two
    other sections – namely Section 5902 dealing with Prostitution and Section
    5503 dealing with Disorderly Conduct. See Commonwealth v. Meyer, 
    431 A.2d 287
    , 289 (Pa. Super. 1981).         Section 5902 defines “public place” as
    “any place to which the public or any substantial group thereof has access.”
    18 Pa.C.S. § 5902 (f). Section 5503 defines “public” as “affecting or likely to
    -9-
    J.S36024/16
    affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has
    access . . . or any premises which are open to the public."            18 Pa.C.S. §
    5503(c).    Further, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “public property” as
    “[s]tate – or community – owned property not restricted to any one
    individual’s use or possession.”     Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
    Also, in Meyer, this Court found that the area directly outside of a private
    club was not public property:
    [It] cannot be said here that the public at large has the right to
    enter V.F.W. Post 118 or make use of its facilities, nor can it be
    said that V.F.W. Post 118 is “easy to enter” when the individual
    attempting entry is not a member or the guest of a member. The
    same applies to the area outside the Post in this case.
    Meyer, 
    431 A.2d at 289
    .
    Our   review   of   the   record,   in   a   light   most   favorable   to     the
    Commonwealth, reveals insufficient evidence to establish that Appellant
    “appeared in a public place,” and therefore insufficient evidence to establish
    the “public” element of Public Drunkenness.            18 Pa.C.S. § 5505.          First,
    Appellant yelled at the Boyd family from his own porch, which is private
    property. (N.T., Trial, at 48, 56). Next, Appellant left the porch and got into
    an altercation with Mr. Boyd along the property line, remaining on his own
    private property.     Id. at 59-60, 63.            The Commonwealth presented
    conflicting testimony about where Appellant was standing when he shouted
    the threat. While Mr. Boyd testified that Appellant remained on Appellant’s
    - 10 -
    J.S36024/16
    own property, Mrs. Boyd testified that Appellant was “coming into her
    driveway.” Id. at 59-64, 70.2
    Whether Appellant remained on his own private property or began to
    enter Mr. and Mrs. Boyd’s private property, the fact remains that he did not
    “appear in a public place.” The Commonwealth did not present any evidence
    to indicate that Appellant’s property or the Boyd’s property was a “public
    place.”   No evidence established that either property was “state – or
    community – owned” or that a “substantial group” had access to the
    properties. See Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also 18 Pa.C.S.
    § 5902(f); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(c).             On the contrary, the
    Commonwealth presented evidence that Mr. Boyd had no trespassing signs
    on his property to ensure that the public did not have access to his private
    property. (N.T., Trial, at 60).
    Further, the trial court erroneously relies on Commonwealth v.
    Whritenour, 
    751 A.2d 687
     (Pa. Super. 2000), to determine that Appellant
    was in a public place. In Whritenour, this Court concluded that a road in a
    2
    We note that we find the Appellant’s behavior not only excessive and
    inappropriate, but also detrimental to the safety and sanctity of
    neighborhoods and communities. The Crimes Code, however, limits this
    offense only to defendants whose offensive acts occur in public. Since we are
    limited by the language of the Crimes Code, we must reverse the conviction.
    We, however, see no difference in the harm caused by drunken behavior
    that occurs in public or in residential areas and ask the Legislature to
    consider expanding the application of this offense to those acts that occur in
    residential areas as well.
    - 11 -
    J.S36024/16
    gated community was “public” because “the road was located in a
    neighborhood, whatever its legal constitution, and was traversed by
    members of the community and their invitees or licensees.” 
    Id. at 688
    . In
    the instant case, the trial court relied on Whritenour to conclude that the
    incident took place on property within a residential neighborhood, and
    thereby determined that the property was “public.” Trial Ct. Op. at 12. We
    disagree. Whritenour, where the incident took place on a private road that
    numerous people had access to, is not analogous to the instant case where
    Appellant was on his own private property and then his neighbor’s private
    property, both of which were not open to members of the community.
    The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
    reveals that Appellant was on his own private property and then his
    neighbors’ property – neither of which qualify as “public property.”   The
    Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was in a public place while
    intoxicated, and therefore failed to present sufficient evidence to prove
    Public Drunkenness.
    Judgment of sentence for Terroristic Threats affirmed; judgment of
    sentence for Public Drunkenness vacated.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 7/22/2016
    - 12 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1632 MDA 2015

Filed Date: 7/22/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/22/2016