J-A04025-15 

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.F., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: S.M.F. 

 No. 1032 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment Entered May 30, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-62-JV-0000014-2014 

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2015 

 Juvenile Appellant, S.M.F., appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered on May 30, 2014, following her summary conviction1 for 

harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). Upon review, we affirm. 

 The juvenile court set forth the facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows: 

 [O]n or about February 27, 2014, [] Appellant, a twelveyear-old female, while attending school at the Tidioute 

Community Charter School, was directed by a teacher [] to 

enter the office at the school due to her misbehavior. 

[] Appellant closed the door to that office, would not allow 

the teacher in, and [] Appellant and teacher began pushing 

against each other with the door to the office. The teacher 

suffered a shoulder injury as a result. [On March 3, 2014, 

____________________________________________ 

1

 A summary offense is not an act of delinquency under the Juvenile Act. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. “Thus, an individual who is under the age of 18 and 

convicted of a summary offense has not been adjudicated delinquent.” In 

re J.M., 42 A.3d 348, 353 (Pa. Super. 2012). However, as discussed infra, 

Appellant was originally charged with aggravated assault, as well. Thus, this 

case proceeded in juvenile court as an adjudication hearing. 
J-A04025-15 

- 2 - 

the Commonwealth filed a written juvenile allegation and 

juvenile petition alleging dependency charging Appellant 

with harassment and one count of aggravated assault

pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(3).] At [the 

adjudication] hearing, the Commonwealth moved to add a 

count of [a]ggravated [a]ssault under 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2702(a)(5) and the [c]ourt granted the motion. The 

adjudication hearing occurred over two days on April 24, 

2014, and May 30, 2014, with [] Appellant represented by 

private counsel. Following the hearing, the [c]ourt found 

that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the two counts 

of [a]ggravated [a]ssault and, therefore, [] Appellant was 

determined not to be delinquent. The [c]ourt did find [] 

Appellant guilty of the summary offense of harassment and 

imposed a sentence of a $100.00 fine, costs, 20 hours of 

community service and a letter of apology to the victim 

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a)(5). 

Juvenile Court Opinion, 7/21/2014, at 1-2. This timely appeal followed.2 

 On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: 

I. Whether the trial court erred in finding sufficient

evidence to prove the element of “intent” beyond a 

reasonable doubt for the summary offense of 

harassment, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1)? 

II. Whether the trial court erred in finding that Appellant 

possessed the requisite specific intent under 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1), when in fact, Appellant’s 

actions were a manifestation of her disability? 

III. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the 

opinion testimony regarding Appellant’s diagnosis of 

Oppositional Defiance Disorder? 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 27, 2014. On that same day, 

the juvenile court issued an order directing Appellant to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

Appellant complied timely. The juvenile court issued an opinion pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 21, 2014. 
J-A04025-15 

- 3 - 

Appellant’s Brief at 9 (suggested answers omitted).

 In her first issue presented, Appellant argues that the juvenile court 

erred by finding the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support 

her adjudication. Id. at 16-20. She claims that the Commonwealth failed to 

prove that she had the intent to harass, annoy or alarm the victim as 

required under the harassment statute. Id. at 16. More specifically, 

Appellant contends: 

Appellant’s actions occurred in reaction to a single, isolated, 

exigent circumstance that [the victim] testified was the 

consequence of her own actions, and not those of []

Appellant. [...] Appellant is a special needs child with a 

diagnosis of [Oppositional Defiance Disorder (“ODD”)], a 

behavioral disorder that by its very nature hinders a child’s 

ability to recognize or appreciate that their [sic] behavior is 

defiant. 

Id. at 17. 

Thus, in sum, Appellant argues: 

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the 

testimony of [the victim], the [juvenile] court erred by 

inferring that [] Appellant knew or should have known that 

her conduct would harass, annoy, or alarm [the victim]. [] 

Appellant was confronted about her behavior three hours 

earlier, which triggered her ODD symptoms and caused her 

to become agitated and defiant. [] Appellant further 

reacted to being escorted by her teacher into a room with 

another special needs student known to have aggressive 

tendencies. In [the victim’s] opinion, this caused [] 

Appellant to perceive that she had been placed into this 

situation by her teacher. [] Appellant’s reaction to this 

situation included yelling, sitting on the floor, blocking the 

door, and in [the victim’s] own opinion, intending to keep 

[the victim] out of the room. Although [] Appellant likely 

knew that she was blocking the door, at no point during the 

trial was any testimony elicited from which it could be 
J-A04025-15 

- 4 - 

inferred that [] Appellant knew or should have known that 

her actions would harass, annoy, or alarm [the victim]. 

Id. at 19-20. 

As our Supreme Court has noted, the standard of review used when 

evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a conviction for a summary 

offense is 

whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together 

with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have 

found that each element of the offenses charged was

supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to 

prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Williamson, 616 A.2d 980, 981 (Pa. 1992). 

 A person may be convicted of harassment “when, with intent to 

harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: (1) strikes, shoves, kicks or 

otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or 

threatens to do the same[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(1). In addressing the 

proper interpretation of the statutory phrase “with intent to harass,” this 

Court noted: 

The law does not permit an actor to avoid the consequences 

of [her] conduct by disclaimers of an intent to injure or 

harm or offend or “harass.” Rather, the law obliges the 

factfinder to rely for the discernment of intent upon 

demonstrative manifestation of that intent. Every action 

produces a reaction, every act has an effect. The nature or 

essence of an act is most often, and usually convincingly, 

determined by its effect or result. When an individual 

knows or should know the consequences of his act, [s]he 

is presumed to be aware of the nature of [her] act, and 

[her] decision to perform the act is a manifestation of [her] 

intent to effect the results of [her] act. 
J-A04025-15 

- 5 - 

Commonwealth v. Hart, 559 A.2d 584, 587 (Pa. Super. 1989) (citation 

omitted) (emphasis in original). “An intent to harass may be inferred from 

the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 72 A.3d 719, 

721 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). 

 Here, the juvenile court opined: 

It can certainly be inferred from [her] conduct that [] 

Appellant [] intended to harass, annoy, or alarm the victim 

teacher by engaging in [the chosen] conduct. Appellant 

was a student under the victim’s authority. She knew that 

the teacher wanted to enter the room where [] Appellant 

was placed. She was receiving verbal commands from the 

victim to stop her conduct and allow the victim in. By 

repeatedly kicking against the door and the victim and 

preventing her from entering, even after hearing and 

ignoring the demands of [the victim], it can be inferred that 

[] Appellant intended to harass, annoy, or alarm the victim. 

Juvenile Court Opinion, 7/21/2014, at 3. 

 Upon review of the record, looking at the totality of the circumstances 

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as our standard requires, 

we agree. The victim testified that she questioned Appellant, one of her 

students, regarding her disrespect towards another teacher and Appellant 

started yelling. N.T., 4/24/2014, at 9. Appellant was directed to a nearby 

office and told to sit down inside. Id. at 11. Appellant went into the office 

and shut the door and dead-bolted it. Id. at 12. There was another student 

and a doctor, a special education supervisor, locked in the office with 

Appellant. Id. at 12-13. The doctor unlocked the office door and a struggle 

between the victim and Appellant ensued. Id. at 13-14. While the victim 
J-A04025-15 

- 6 - 

tried to push the door open with her shoulder, Appellant pushed back. Id.

at 15-16, 52. The victim estimated that she was hit in the shoulder by the 

door approximately 10-20 times. Id. at 16, 50. While this was happening, 

the victim asked Appellant “to please open the door.” Id. at 45. Appellant 

was yelling, “leave me alone.” N.T., 5/30/2014, at 55, 66. The doctor, who 

was still inside the office with Appellant, was instructing Appellant to get 

away from the door to let the victim inside. Id. at 66. The victim testified 

that she did not believe that Appellant intended to hurt her, but that 

Appellant knew what she was doing and it was Appellant’s intent to keep her 

out of the office. Id. at 41-42, 65. The eyewitness doctor testified that she 

told Appellant to open the door. Id. at 84. Appellant replied that the victim 

put her in the office and she was not moving. Id. The doctor stated that 

she “believed that when [Appellant] was in that heightened state [Appellant] 

knew it was not right to be pushing against the door, but [] [did] not believe 

[Appellant] knew she was hurting [the victim].” Id. at 107. The doctor 

further stated that she “knew that [Appellant] was pushing the door to keep 

[the victim] out.” Id. at 110. 

 Here, there is no dispute that the victim was subjected to physical 

contact and Appellant was the cause. Based upon all of Appellant’s actions 

and words, we believe the Commonwealth proved intent under the 

harassment statute. Despite pleas to open the door at issue, Appellant 

persisted in pushing back and yelled to be left alone. As a student, she 

knew or should have known the consequences of her acts against her 
J-A04025-15 

- 7 - 

teacher. Her continued perseverance in keeping the victim out of the office 

showed Appellant’s intent to annoy, alarm, and harass. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s first issue is meritless. 

 We will examine Appellant’s second and third issues as presented 

together, wherein Appellant further contends that the juvenile court erred in 

convicting her of harassment because she lacked specific intent due to the 

manifestation of her ODD. Appellant’s Brief at 20-27. Pointing to the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Pennsylvania Code, and 

subsequent case law, Appellant argues, “[c]ourts have grappled with the 

difficult question, as to whether special needs children with behavioral issues 

should be disciplined by the school system or prosecuted by the judicial 

system when their behavior becomes severe.” Id. at 22. Appellant 

contends that “the alleged victim and the [s]chool both understood that [] 

Appellant did not possess the intent required of any criminal statute.” Id. at 

24. Appellant asserts that the juvenile court erred in failing to “consider the 

opinion testimony of [the eyewitness doctor] regarding Appellant’s ODD[,]” 

because of her “extensive educational background and work with special 

needs children” and she “was the only adult to witness the incident from 

within the office where [] Appellant was located.” Id. at 25-26. 

On these issues, the juvenile court determined: 

 [] Appellant did not assert an affirmative defense of 

insanity or mental infirmity and the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Juvenile Court Procedure do not provide for such. [] 

Appellant did not file a request for a psychiatric evaluation. 

No case law was uncovered regarding an insanity or mental 
J-A04025-15 

- 8 - 

infirmity defense in a juvenile proceeding. Instead, 

Appellant is asserting that [] Appellant’s harassing conduct 

was a manifestation of her ODD and, therefore, the [c]ourt 

could not find that Appellant intended to harass, annoy[,] or 

alarm the victim, the mens rea requirement for a conviction. 

[] Appellant cites no support for this proposition and no 

such support could be found. [Thus, there is n]o appellate 

support for the proposition that ODD, recognized as one of 

the most common behavioral and emotional disorders 

among children, without a determination of insanity, 

[constitutes] a defense to criminal conduct. 

* * * 

It is often the juveniles in the delinquency system [who] 

carry this type of diagnosis and, if so, it is addressed at the 

disposition stage of the delinquency action. [The victim and 

the eyewitness doctor], while extremely experienced and 

qualified to work with children with ODD in the educational 

setting, are not psychologists or psychiatrists qualified to 

render expert testimony that [] Appellant was insane, nor 

has [] Appellant asserted [insanity] as a defense in this 

case. While the [c]ourt initially permitted testimony, it did 

not consider the testimony in determining the intent issue 

with respect to any of the crimes charged. The [c]ourt’s 

refusal to consider the testimony as such was not error and, 

if in error, was harmless. 

Juvenile Court Opinion, 7/21/2014, at 4-5. 

 We agree. “The general presumption is that every man is normal and 

is possessed of ordinary faculties; such defenses as intoxication, insanity, 

and aphasia (or a mind not conscious of its acts) are affirmative defenses, 

and the burden is on the defendant to establish them.” Commonwealth v. 

Morrison, 109 A. 878, 880 (Pa. 1920). “Under Pennsylvania Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 573, a defendant must disclose the assertion of certain 

defenses, such as alibi or insanity, before the commencement of a trial, 

thereby giving the Commonwealth notice and the opportunity to prepare its 
J-A04025-15 

- 9 - 

case in chief.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 810 A.2d 698, 702 (Pa. Super. 

2002), citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(C)(1)(a), (b). Upon review, the only 

testimony presented related to ODD was the testimony offered by the victim 

teacher and the eyewitness doctor. Neither were qualified as experts. Their 

opinion testimony pertaining to ODD was limited to the challenges those 

witnesses faced with regard to educating Appellant. There was no medical 

testimony describing the actual condition or its effects on Appellant 

specifically. The witnesses that did testify knew Appellant’s diagnosis, 

worked with her regularly in the educational setting, and still opined that 

Appellant understood the harassing nature of her conduct. Most notably, 

both witnesses stated that they did not believe Appellant intended to harm 

the victim physically, but that Appellant was able to appreciate that her 

conduct was nevertheless alarming, annoying, and harassing. Thus, we 

conclude that Appellant did not meet her burden of proving an affirmative 

defense. Having already determined there was sufficient evidence to 

support her conviction, Appellant’s second and third issues must fail. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 4/13/2015