From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Gibson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 20, 2023
375 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 20, 2023)

Opinion

375 MDA 2023

12-20-2023

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEITH DOMINIQUE GIBSON Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 7, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003230-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]

MEMORANDUM

BOWES, J.

Keith Dominique Gibson appeals from the judgment of sentence of two to twenty-three months of incarceration, followed by two years of probation, imposed upon his conviction for stalking. We affirm.

Given our disposition, we do not extensively reproduce herein the history of this case. Briefly, in the summer of 2020, Appellant began a romantic relationship with Kent Fullerton and learned that Fullerton previously had been a sexual partner of Victim. Between early July 2020 and early June 2021, Appellant communicated with Victim directly and indirectly through Victim's wife, by way of phone calls, texts, social media, and in person. The communications alleged that Victim and his wife were sexual predators who lured young men into their home and plied them with alcohol so that Victim could take advantage of them. Appellant also repeatedly threatened to cause Victim physical harm, both personally and through Fullerton's father.

Fullerton was twenty-two years old at the time of his relationship with Victim, who was in his early forties. Appellant was in his early thirties during the relevant timeframe.

Based upon evidence of these events, a jury found Appellant guilty of stalking on March 7, 2023. The same day, the court sentenced Appellant as indicated above. Appellant filed no post-sentence motion, instead filing a notice of appeal on March 8, 2023. Thereafter, both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following question for our determination:

Was the evidence presented by the Commonwealth insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] was guilty of stalking pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(a)(1) where the evidence was insufficient to prove that [Appellant] acted with the intent to place another person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress, most of the speech at issue was protected speech under the First Amendment to the [United States] Constitution and Article 1, [§] 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and [Appellant] did not engage in a course of conduct that conveyed to the victim that such conduct would continue where communication between [Appellant] and the victim ceased in January 2021, and no further communication occurred until [Appellant] saw the victim in public on June [8], 2021[?]
Appellant's brief at 5 (cleaned up).

The following governs our review of Appellant's question:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for a fact-finder. In addition, we note that the 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. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence 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.
Commonwealth v. Haahs, 289 A.3d 100, 104 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

The section of the stalking statute under which Appellant was convicted provides that a person commits stalking when he "engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either an intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person[.]" 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(a)(1). The term "course of conduct" is defined as follows: "A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. The term includes lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings, caricatures or actions, either in person or anonymously." 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1(f).

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the intent element of the offense, that his communications were protected free speech, and that his various actions did not amount to a course of conduct. See Appellant's brief at 10. After a thorough review of Appellant's brief, the Commonwealth's briefs, the applicable law, and the certified record, we agree with the trial court's assessment of the arguments raised by Appellant, and we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned opinion that Honorable Merrill M. Spahn, Jr., entered on May 8, 2023.

We note that the certified record does not contain the trial exhibits. However, the trial transcripts contain adequate descriptions of the exhibits, if not verbatim reiteration, such that we are able to conduct our review.

Specifically, Judge Spahn properly held that the Commonwealth's evidence established "that Appellant intended both to place [Victim] in a reasonable fear of bodily injury and to cause [Victim] substantial emotional distress with his course of conduct." Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/23, at 12. See id. at 6-10, 12 (detailing Appellant's threatening communications). Indeed, given Appellant's express indications that he would beat Victim "until [he] was unrecognizable," that he could probably kill Victim within four minutes, and that Fullerton's father would render Victim identifiable only by dental records, see N.T. Trial, 3/6/23, at 104, Appellant's contention that there was no evidence to allow the jury to conclude that he intended to put Victim in fear of bodily injury or to cause them substantial emotional distress is wholly unfounded. Likewise, Judge Spahn correctly determined that the volume and duration of Appellant's threats fell within the statutory definition of a "course of conduct." See Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/23, at 14. See also In re M.J.M., 858 A.2d 1259, 1263 (Pa.Super. 2004) ("[A] course of conduct can be based on words alone[.]").

Finally, Judge Spahn properly ruled that Appellant's conduct of repeatedly threatening to physically harm Victim was not constitutionally-protected free speech. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/8/23, at 14-15 (citing, inter alia, Interest of: J.J.M., 265 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2021)). See also J.J.M., supra at 254 (providing that serious expressions of an intent to inflict harm "are not covered by the umbrella of First Amendment protections due to the need to shield individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur").

Accordingly, we conclude that none of Appellant's arguments has merit and affirm his judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Gibson

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 20, 2023
375 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 20, 2023)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Gibson

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KEITH DOMINIQUE GIBSON Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 20, 2023

Citations

375 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 20, 2023)