J-S18019-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

Z.M.B. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1564 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 1, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-18-SA-0000009-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022

Z.M.B., a juvenile, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered 

following his conviction for the summary offense of disorderly conduct.1 He 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

In March 2021, Z.M.B. received a summons for a summary case 

following an incident at Central Mountain Middle School. The case proceeded 

to a summary trial. The trial court set forth the following facts:

1. On March 8, 2021, Heather Boyle, a teacher at the Central 

Mountain Middle School located in Mill Hall, Clinton County, 

Pennsylvania, was present for work and attending to her 

assigned duties.

2. At approximately noon on the afore-mentioned date, Ms. 

Boyle was in the hallway near her classroom monitoring 

student movement between classes and lunch.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a).
J-S18019-22

- 2 -

3. [Z.M.B.] proceeded past Ms. Boyle while she was located 

in the hallway and stated to her “Ms. Boyle, don’t look at me 

like that”. 

4. Ms. Boyle did not respond.

5. As [Z.M.B.] moved past, he continued to state “Or I’ll slap 

the fuck off of your face”.

6. [Z.M.B.] made the comments to the teacher in the 

hallway when other students were moving from class to 

lunch or class to class.

7. At the time [Z.M.B.] made the comment to Ms. Boyle, the 

hallway was occupied by numerous other students.

8. [Z.M.B.] is considerably larger in stature than Ms. Boyle.

9. Ms. Boyle was shocked and experienced a wave of fear 

upon hearing the comment.

Trial Court Opinion (“1925(a) Op.”), Dec. 28, 2021, at 2. 

The trial court found Z.M.B. guilty of the summary offense of disorderly 

conduct. It sentenced him to 90 days’ probation and ordered that he pay a 

fine and perform 25 hours of community service. Z.M.B. appealed.

Z.M.B. raises the following issue:

Whether the evidence presented at Trial was insufficient to 

support [Z.M.B.’s] conviction for Disorderly Conduct, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1), since the Commonwealth failed to 

prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [Z.M.B.] committed 

any acts with the specific intent to cause public 

inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or that he recklessly 

created an unjustifiable risk of public disturbance? 

Z.M.B.’s Br. at 4.2

Z.M.B. argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish his “single 

statement was made with the specific intent to cause public inconvenience, 

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth did not file an appellate brief.
J-S18019-22

- 3 -

annoyance or alarm, or that he recklessly created an unjustifiable risk of public 

disturbance.” Z.M.B.’s Br. at 7. He claims the statement was “fleeting” and 

“unremarkable.” Id. Further, he claims that although the comment was 

disrespectful, and should have resulted in administrative discipline from the 

school, it did not deserve a criminal conviction. He maintains the trial court 

did not find that he acted intentionally, but rather that he recklessly created 

a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. He claims this case is 

distinguishable from cases where an argument between two or three people 

has been found to create a risk of public disturbance by claiming the “incident 

lasted mere second, and [Z.M.B.] did not make any threatening gestures, did 

not have any physical contact with Ms. Boyle, and continued walking in the 

other direction.” Id. at 11-12. He points out that Ms. Boyle did not call out or 

say anything to him, choosing to proceed to the principal’s office, and that she 

did not observe any disturbance caused by the remark. Id. at 12.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “must 

determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 23 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en 

banc) (citation omitted). “Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier 

of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (citation 
J-S18019-22

- 4 -

omitted). Our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. 

Commonwealth v. Neysmith, 192 A.3d 184, 189 (Pa.Super. 2018).

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, “with intent to cause public 

inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: 

(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior[.]” 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1). “Public” is defined as “affecting or likely to affect 

persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; 

among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, 

apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or 

any premises which are open to the public.” Id. at § 5503(c). “Section 5503 

as a whole is aimed at preventing public disturbance, [and] it accomplishes 

this aim by focusing upon certain individual acts, which, if pursued with the 

intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly 

creating a risk thereof, constitute the offense of disorderly conduct.” 

Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93, 100 (Pa. 2008) (emphasis 

omitted). If someone engages in fighting or makes threats in a public arena, 

even if the conduct is directed at only one other person, the person may be 

subject to conviction for disorderly conduct. Id.

Here, the trial court explained that the evidence was sufficient to 

establish reckless conduct:

In the instant matter, the evidence is sufficient for this Court 

to conclude that [Z.M.B.’s] conduct was reckless. [Z.M.B.] 

consciously disregarded a substantial and justifiable risk 

that the public (other students and teachers in the school) 

would be annoyed or alarmed as a result of his comment.
J-S18019-22

- 5 -

This Court also considered the environment where the 

conduct occurred. The remarks to the teacher, which this 

Court considered to be in the nature of an alleged assault 

and harassing, were made in the occupied hallway of a 

school.

When considering the level of school violence our society 

has been exposed to, it is clear that [Z.M.B.] engaged in 

conduct or acted in a manner that constituted a gross 

deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable 

person would observe in his situation.

1925(a) Op. at 3-4.

We agree with the trial court that the evidence supported the conviction. 

Although Z.M.B. directed his threatening comments toward one person, they 

were in a school hallway where numerous students were walking, and the 

threatening comments toward a teacher recklessly created a risk of public 

inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. That a disturbance did not follow is 

irrelevant. Rather, the Commonwealth was required to prove that the conduct 

recklessly created a risk of the disturbance, which it did here. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/06/2022