Commonwealth v. McConnell

244 A.3d 44

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Joseph A. MCCONNELL, Appellant

No. 103 MDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued December 9, 2020

Filed December 30, 2020

Daniel Anthony McGarrigle, Media, for appellant.

Jonathan Patrick Chieppor, Lancaster, for appellee.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.^*

OPINION BY COLINS, J.:

Appellant, Joseph A. McConnell appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of the summary offense of disorderly conduct.¹ We affirm.

On the evening of May 31, 2019, Appellant turned on eight construction-grade floodlights in the backyard of his home in Manheim Township directed towards the home of his neighbor, Gregory Meglic, whose own backyard lights were a source of disturbance to Appellant. At least seven neighbors complained to the police about Appellant's floodlights. Police responded, and Appellant agreed, after more than 45 minutes of discussion with police, to turn off the floodlights. The lights were on for approximately two hours in total.

On June 3, 2019, the Manheim Township Police Department filed a citation charging Appellant with summary disorderly conduct.

On July 11, 2019, Appellant was convicted by a magisterial district judge and ordered to pay a $25 fine along with costs. Appellant filed a timely appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County ("trial court") for a trial de novo .

At the December 18, 2019 trial, Mr. Meglic testified that he had previously had "no issues" with Appellant whose home is directly behind his own. N.T., 12/18/19, at 4. Mr. Meglic stated that he had two light strings around the area of his pool and a motion-detecting security light on his home that pointed down towards his pool. Id. at 4-5, 9. On the evening of May 31, 2019, Mr. Meglic watched Appellant move the eight construction floodlights onto his back porch and point them towards Mr. Meglic's property. Id. at 5. Appellant turned the lights on at approximately 9 pm, and Mr. Meglic subsequently called the police. Id. at 4-5, 10. Mr. Meglic described the lights as causing annoyance and alarm, stating that they "penetrated every [ ] window [ ] on the backside of our house." Id. at 8, 10. In addition, the lights confused his son's friend who was playing in the pool at the time that the lights were turned on. Id. at 5. Appellant eventually turned the lights off at approximately 11 pm, but only after Mr. Meglic agreed to turn off his security light at the request of a police officer. Id. at 8, 11.

Another of Appellant's neighbors, Jennifer Kane, testified that she was reading a magazine on her living room sofa at approximately 8:45 pm on May 31, 2019 when Appellant turned on the floodlights. Id. at 12-14. Ms. Kane described the lights as being so bright that they lit up her entire house and that they were visible "nine houses down." Id. at 12-13. Ms. Kane stated that the lights caused her annoyance and alarm as she was pregnant at that time and was unable to relax in her own home after a strenuous shift as a nurse. Id. at 13-14. Appellant stipulated that another neighbor, Andrea Veikle, would have testified at trial that the lights were on from 8:45 pm to 11 pm on May 31, 2019 and caused her annoyance and alarm. Id. at 14-15.

Lieutenant Charles Melhorn, the patrol commander of the Manheim Township Police Department on the evening of May 31, 2019, testified that he received a call for assistance at approximately 9:15 pm from the first officer responding to the scene who had made contact with Appellant but been unable to convince him to turn off the floodlights. Id. at 15-16, 19. When Lieutenant Melhorn arrived, he described Mr. Meglic's backyard as being "lit up like Wrigley Field," and he could not determine how many individual lights were present "because it was just a sea of light." Id. at 16. Lieutenant Melhorn further stated that "with the naked eye[,] you couldn't even look in the direction of the lighting arrangement." Id. at 16-17. The Manheim Township Police Department received seven or eight complaints in total regarding the lights, one from a house at least a hundred yards away from the offending lights. Id. at 17.

Lieutenant Melhorn and the other officer approached Appellant's house, and Appellant at first refused to turn the lights off, reasoning that because Manheim Township had informed him that Mr. Meglic's backyard lights were not proscribed by local ordinance, he was not violating any law. Id. at 17-18, 21-22. Lieutenant Melhorn advised Appellant that he was committing a disorderly conduct offense and that the offense could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor if he refused to turn the lights off.² Id. at 18. Appellant still refused. Id. at 18-19. Eventually, after further pleas from the first officer who arrived on the scene, Appellant turned off the lights approximately 45 minutes after Lieutenant Melhorn's arrival. Id. at 19-20.

Appellant testified that he had previously hired an attorney to file a complaint with Manheim Township regarding his objection to the "totality of the lighting" in Mr. Meglic's backyard, including the string lights, a "green glow from the swimming pool," tiki torches, the motion-detecting security light, and the light from a fire pit on the property. Id. at 26. Appellant also asked his attorney to address the fire pit with the Township as his wife was a recent cancer survivor and the smoke was entering their house. Id. The Township agreed with Appellant's attorney that the fire pit violated the local burn ban but informed him that the local ordinance did not address lighting. Id. at 26-27. Appellant stated that he "put up the lights to make a statement" and he thought that if he was cited and fined for his conduct, he would later be able to go in front of a judge to explain why he did what he did and the judge would also be able to address Mr. Meglic's lighting at the same hearing. Id. at 27, 29-30. Appellant admitted on cross examination that he had never approached Manheim Township in an effort to have them amend the ordinance to address excessive lighting. Id. at 30.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of disorderly conduct and imposed a fine of $200 plus costs. Appellant filed a timely appeal of the judgment. Appellant timely filed a statement of errors complained of on appeal as directed by the trial court, and the trial court issued its opinion on March 6, 2020.

Appellant raises the following issue on appeal: "Did the trial court err in determining that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was sufficient to establish Appellant's guilt for disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt?" Appellant's Brief at 2.

A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law and is subject to plenary review under a de novo standard. Commonwealth v. Hitcho , 633 Pa. 51, 123 A.3d 731, 746 (2015). "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Hill , 210 A.3d 1104, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2019). "[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence." Id. (citation omitted). "It is within the province of the fact-finder to determine the weight to be accorded to each witness's testimony and to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." Id. Furthermore, "[t]he Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime by means of wholly circumstantial evidence." Id. "As an appellate court, we may not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder." Id.

As relevant to this case, an individual commits the crime of disorderly conduct:

if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he ... creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4). Our Supreme Court has cautioned that "the offense of disorderly conduct is not intended as a catchall for every act which annoys or disturbs people" and "it is not to be used as a dragnet for all the irritations which breed in the ferment of a community." Commonwealth v. Hock , 556 Pa. 409, 728 A.2d 943, 947 (1999) (citation omitted). Rather, the offense of disorderly conduct has the "specific purpose ... to preserve the public peace." Id. (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Mauz , 122 A.3d 1039, 1041 (Pa. Super. 2015). "The cardinal feature of the crime of disorderly conduct is public unruliness which can or does lead to tumult and disorder." Hock , 728 A.2d at 946 (citation omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Williams , 394 Pa.Super. 90, 574 A.2d 1161 (1990), this Court observed that, "[a]lthough a precise definition of ‘physically offensive condition’ is elusive, this term encompasses direct assaults on the physical senses of members of the public." Id. at 1164 ; see also Commonwealth v. N.M.C. , 172 A.3d 1146, 1150 (Pa. Super. 2017). We explained that a defendant can create a physically offensive condition if she invades the physical privacy of another in an extreme manner or "if she sets off a ‘stink bomb’, strews rotting garbage in public places, or shines blinding lights in the eyes of others." Williams , 574 A.2d at 1164 (citing Model Penal Code, § 250.2, Commentary at 347 (1980 ed.)). Conduct that is merely morally offensive but does not affect the physical senses of another does not rise to the level of disorderly conduct. N.M.C. , 172 A.3d at 1151-52 ; Williams , 574 A.2d at 1165.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth did not show that his actions created a "physically offensive condition."³ 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4). Appellant contends that his temporary use of bright lighting directed at one neighbor...