J-S28035-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

EMILY SUE BLEILER 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 432 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 9, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002085-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 9, 2022

Appellant, Emily Sue Bleiler, appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, following her bench trial 

conviction for obstructing administration of law or other governmental 

function.1 We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On 

July 12, 2021, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with interference with 

custody of children, concealment of the whereabouts of a child, and 

obstructing administration of law or other governmental function. Appellant 

proceeded to a bench trial on February 2, 2022. 

The Commonwealth presented the following testimony/evidence at trial. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101. 
J-S28035-22

- 2 -

Hope Yacobowsky testified that in the early morning hours of February 1, 2021

(when she was 17 years old), she texted her ex-boyfriend, Mark Jones, about 

a fight she had with her parents. Hope asked Mark to pick her up, and Mark 

arrived at her home with his uncle, Justin Jones. By the time they arrived, 

Hope indicated that things had resolved with her parents, and she wanted to 

stay at her house. Mark told her if she did not go with him, she would regret 

it. Based on Mark’s prior actions during their dating relationship, Hope took 

the threat seriously. Hope left the house to go with Mark and Justin without 

telling her parents she was leaving or where she was going. Mark and Justin 

brought Hope to Justin’s home, where she stayed until February 2, 2021. 

During that time, Hope repeatedly told Mark and Justin that she wanted to go

home, but they would not let her go. 

Hope next went to the home of Mark’s half-sister, Appellant. Hope knew 

Appellant from previous interactions when she was dating Mark. Hope told 

Appellant multiple times that she wanted to go home, but Appellant said she 

could not. While staying at Appellant’s house, Hope developed a urinary tract 

infection and pleaded to go home because she was in pain. Both Mark and 

Appellant told Hope she could not leave. After spending the night on February 

2, 2021 at Appellant’s house, Appellant and her boyfriend, Steven Freeman,

brought Hope to Walmart to purchase medication to treat her infection. Hope 

had no money, so Appellant and Steven purchased the medication. Appellant 

and Steven also bought hair dye, and they told Hope she needed to dye her 
J-S28035-22

- 3 -

hair so no one would recognize her. After leaving Walmart, Appellant and 

Steven drove with Hope to the liquor store and then to “their dealer’s house” 

to purchase marijuana. They then went back to Appellant’s house to wait for 

a text from Mark, who had indicated that he would need a ride. Once Mark 

texted, Steven, Appellant, and Hope drove to pick up Mark. After picking up 

Mark, they returned to Appellant’s house, where they all began to drink and 

smoke marijuana. Hope testified she felt pressured to drink and smoke 

because Mark used to yell at her or hit her if she did not engage in those types 

of activities with Mark and his friends. Prior to, and while they were all 

drinking and smoking, Hope told Appellant she wanted to go home. Upon 

Mark’s direction, Hope also sent money to Appellant via “Cash App,” so that 

Appellant could then give Hope money without her parents being able to trace 

an ATM withdrawal. Mark also told Hope that if she dialed 911 or attempted 

to leave that he would come after her. Based on prior threats, Hope took 

Mark’s statements seriously.

The next morning on February 4, 2021, Hope woke up and heard 

Appellant and Steven talking. Hope overheard Steven say there was a cop at 

the front door. After the police officer showed up, Mark directed Hope to run 

upstairs. Hope heard the police officer yell, “I’m not playing. I’m not messing 

with you guys. Just bring her downstairs.” At that point, Hope went 

downstairs. The officer transported Hope to her parents’ house. (See N.T. 

Trial, 2/2/22, at 6-60).
J-S28035-22

- 4 -

Paul Yacobowsky, Hope’s father, testified that in the late hours of 

January 31, 2021, Hope and Paul’s wife, Tammy, had an argument over 

Hope’s contact with Mark. Paul and Tammy believed Mark was a “bad apple,” 

and disapproved of them spending time together. Paul believed things were 

okay after the argument and that Hope went upstairs to bed. During the early 

morning hours of February 1, 2021, Paul noticed that Hope was missing from 

the house. Paul called the police. Paul also called Justin because Paul knew 

Justin had a car and suspected that Hope was with Mark. Justin answered the 

phone, denied having seen Hope, passed the phone to Mark, and Mark also 

denied having seen Hope. Mark also told Paul that Hope said she was going 

to stay with some friends in Pottsville or Pottstown. 

Later that morning, Paul reached out to Appellant via Facebook 

Messenger looking for Hope. Appellant said she had not seen Hope, that she 

would keep Hope in her prayers, and confirmed what Mark said about Hope 

staying in Pottsville or Pottstown. Paul reiterated to Appellant that Hope was 

only 17 years old. At some point, Paul received a notification about a banking 

transaction from Hope to Appellant. Paul and Hope share a joint account, so 

Paul had access to the account. After Paul knew about the banking 

transaction, he did not contact Appellant again but gave that information to 

police. However, Appellant reached out to Paul, asking if there was any update 

on Hope’s whereabouts. Paul informed Appellant that the police were 

investigating the matter. (Id. at 61-81).
J-S28035-22

- 5 -

Detective Christopher Stouch2testified that his department received a 

call at 1:34 a.m. on February 1, 2021, from Paul regarding his missing 

daughter, Hope. On February 4, 2021, based on the banking transaction 

information, Detective Stouch went to Appellant’s address. The curtains were 

closed, and there were two vehicles in the driveway. Detective Stouch parked 

his vehicle up the road and observed the house. About 20 minutes later, 

Detective Stouch saw the front door open, and a dog ran outside. Detective 

Stouch approached the house and could see inside the glass storm door. He 

also heard someone yell something and people run across the room. 

As the detective approached, Appellant came to the door and tried to 

shut it, presumably to block the detective’s view inside. The detective was 

not in full uniform, but he was wearing a badge and gun on his belt, and he 

had an embroidered gold police badge on his shirt. The detective knocked on 

the door and said he was looking for Hope. Appellant said Hope was not there. 

Detective Stouch believed Hope was inside the house, so he yelled out, “listen, 

I’m not playing around.” Shortly thereafter, Hope came outside, and the 

detective transported her home to her parents. (Id. at 82-92).

The defense first called Appellant’s boyfriend, Steven Freeman. Steven 

testified that when Hope arrived at his house (where Appellant also lives), 

____________________________________________

2 At the time of trial, Detective Stouch had been promoted to Chief. As the

notes of testimony refer to him as “Detective Stouch,” we will continue with 

that designation. 
J-S28035-22

- 6 -

Hope told Steven she had a fight with her parents and wanted to spend some 

time there to cool down. Steven observed scratches on Hope’s neck, which 

Hope said were from her parents. Hope said she was scared to return home 

and did not indicate that she wanted to go home at any point. When the 

detective arrived on February 4, 2021, Steven did not know it was the police 

at first because he only saw a black SUV. Steven confirmed that he was the 

person who had closed the door because he did not know who was outside 

and because the cat sometimes gets out through the storm door. Once they 

knew it was a police officer looking for Hope, Mark told the officer that Hope 

was not there and Appellant said to Mark, “fix this;” then, Hope came 

downstairs. After she had returned home, Hope reached out to Mark, Steven, 

and Appellant to see if they were all okay. (Id. at 100-112).

Frank Bleiler, Appellant’s father, testified that he lives with Appellant, 

Steven, and Frank’s other children. When Hope arrived at his home, she 

showed Frank a red mark on her neck that she said was from her father, and 

Hope said she did not feel safe going home. Other than that initial interaction, 

Frank had no conversations with Hope. (Id. at 113-122). After Frank’s 

testimony, the defense rested. 

The Commonwealth then recalled Detective Stouch for rebuttal. The 

detective clarified that Appellant had her hand on the door when it was closing. 

The detective said it was possible that Steven was behind the door and 

pushing it shut. Detective Stouch confirmed that he looked at Appellant, 
J-S28035-22

- 7 -

identified himself, and asked Appellant if Hope was inside the house. 

Appellant said “no, she’s not here.” Steven was also there during the 

conversation. The detective did not hear Appellant say, “fix this.” After the 

detective yelled inside the house, Hope came out. (Id. at 126-131). 

Following trial, the court convicted Appellant of obstructing 

administration of law or other governmental function. The court found 

Appellant not guilty of the other offenses. On February 9, 2022, the court 

sentenced Appellant to 18 months’ probation. Appellant timely filed a notice 

of appeal on March 8, 2022. The next day, Appellant filed a motion to stay 

the sentence pending appeal, which the trial court denied. On March 16, 2022, 

the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely complied on 

March 24, 2022.

Appellant raises one issue for our review:

Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the

conviction on the charge of obstruction of the administration 

of law or other governmental function where the 

Commonwealth failed to present any evidence that 

Appellant’s actions in closing the door on the police officer 

actually obstructed, impaired, or perverted the 

administration of law or government as the officer had no 

lawful right to enter the home and, moreover, the teenager 

in question was recovered shortly thereafter by the officer 

simply calling out to the teenager to exit the home? 

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our standard 

of review is as follows: 
J-S28035-22

- 8 -

As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency 

claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most 

favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the 

benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the 

evidence. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the 

verdict when it establishes each material element of the 

crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 

Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is to be 

resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak 

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of 

fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances. 

The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of 

wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that 

the evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a 

crime is circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where 

the evidence coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. 

Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that 

of the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, 

accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant’s 

crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s 

convictions will be upheld. 

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336-37 (Pa.Super. 2019) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722-23 (Pa.Super. 

2013)). 

Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to establish that her act of 

closing the door on a police officer obstructed, impaired, or perverted the 

administration of law or government functions. Appellant asserts the 

detective had no lawful right to enter her home. Appellant emphasizes that 

the detective recovered the missing teenager shortly after the alleged 

obstruction by simply calling out to the teenager to exit the home. Appellant 
J-S28035-22

- 9 -

insists the detective was not in uniform when he arrived at her home, and he 

did not announce his identity until after Appellant had closed the door on him. 

Appellant contends she had no legal duty to keep her door open, and she was 

within her rights to close the door on the detective where he did not have a 

search or arrest warrant.3 Appellant further maintains her statement that the 

teenager was not inside the home did not constitute an obstacle sufficient to 

support her conviction. Appellant concludes the Commonwealth presented 

insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction, and this Court must reverse 

her conviction and vacate the judgment of sentence. We disagree. 

The Crimes Code defines the offense of obstructing administration of 

law or other governmental function as follows:

§ 5101. Obstructing administration of law or other 

governmental function

A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if 

[s]he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the 

administration of law or other governmental function by 

force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of 

official duty, or any other unlawful act, except that this 

section does not apply to flight by a person charged with 

crime, refusal to submit to arrest, failure to perform a legal 

duty other than an official duty, or any other means of 

avoiding compliance with law without affirmative

interference with governmental functions.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101. 

____________________________________________

3 Although Appellant makes much of the fact that Detective Stouch did not 

have a search warrant or an arrest warrant, we emphasize that the detective 

did not enter Appellant’s home or place anyone under arrest during the 

interaction at issue. 
J-S28035-22

- 10 -

The crime consists of two elements: 1) an intent to obstruct the 

administration of law; and 2) an act of “affirmative interference with 

governmental functions.” Commonwealth v. Gentile, 640 A.2d 1309, 1312 

(Pa.Super. 1994) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). This 

offense was derived from Section 242.1 of the Model Penal Code, which was 

“designed to cover a broad range of behavior that impedes or defeats the 

operation of government.” Commonwealth v. Palchanes, 224 A.3d 58, 60 

(Pa.Super. 2019), appeal denied, 659 Pa. 354, 232 A.3d 566 (2020). Notably, 

“[t]he interference need not involve physical contact with the government 

official as he performs his duties.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 100 A.3d 

207, 215 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 725 (2015). See also 

Commonwealth v. Mastrangelo, 489 Pa. 254, 414 A.2d 54 (1980) 

(affirming conviction under Section 5101 based on defendant’s verbal abuse 

of parking enforcement officer upon receiving parking ticket, which ultimately 

deterred officer from performing her job).

This Court has explained:

Evidence that one has physically impeded a law 

enforcement officer from administering the law has been 

held sufficient to sustain a conviction under § 5101. See

Commonwealth v. Conception, 657 A.2d 1298 ([Pa. 

Super.] 1995) (appellant blocked door of her apartment to 

prevent the police from entering to apprehend fugitive who 

was hiding in the shower stall); Commonwealth v. Reed, 

851 A.2d 958, 963-64 (Pa.Super. 2004) (defendant 

attempted to obstruct the pathway of a uniformed police 

officer in the common area of an apartment house after the 

officer exclaimed to the defendant: “Just let me get by and 

do my job”); Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 
J-S28035-22

- 11 -

1284-[85] (Pa.Super. 2006) (defendant, in an attempt to 

interfere with the law enforcement officer who was escorting 

his wife from the courtroom, placed his arm across the court 

officer’s chest and attempted to push him).

Johnson, supra at 214-15 (holding evidence was sufficient to sustain 

conviction under Section 5101 where appellant intentionally delayed opening 

locked door to announced police presence to permit suspect to escape 

apprehension). Moreover, “[S]ection 5101 includes intentional, albeit 

unsuccessful attempts to influence, obstruct, or delay the administration of 

law.” Commonwealth v. Snyder, 60 A.3d 165, 177 (Pa.Super. 2013), 

appeal denied, 620 Pa. 731, 70 A.3d 811 (2013) (quoting Commonwealth 

v. Trolene, 397 A.2d 1200, 1204 (Pa.Super. 1979)). 

Instantly, the trial court reasoned:

[T]he Commonwealth presented testimony from Detective 

Christopher Stouch that while in his attempt to check for the 

missing teenager at [Appellant’s] home in Bernville, he 

approached the glass storm door of the house. He was in 

an unmarked police vehicle but was wearing a polo with a 

gold police badge embroidered on the chest and had his 

badge and gun on his waist. At the front door, he heard 

yelling and observed people running when [Appellant] 

appeared at the glass storm door and someone in the house 

shut the front door. He informed [Appellant] he was looking 

for the missing teenager and [Appellant] answered that she 

was not there through the closed door. The detective 

continued the conversation through the door and yelled out 

for the missing teenager to come out of the house. Minutes 

later, the teenager appeared and exited the house. There 

was conflicting testimony [about] whether [Appellant] 

closed the door or someone else in the house closed the 

door. Although [Appellant] may not have been the one to 

actually close the door on the officer, she did obstruct the 

officer’s investigation by telling him the missing teenager 

was not there, when in fact, she was at the house. This is 
J-S28035-22

- 12 -

clearly enough to show that [Appellant] intentionally 

obstructed, impaired or perverted the administration of law 

function by physical interference or obstacle.

This [c]ourt finds that the evidence was sufficient to have 

permitted the trier of fact to find that each and every 

element of the [crime] charged was established beyond a 

reasonable doubt[.]

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/31/22, at 4-5). The record supports the court’s 

analysis.

Here, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant knew of 

Hope’s whereabouts but denied such knowledge to Hope’s father. Appellant

told Hope’s father that Hope was in Pottsville or Pottstown to throw him off 

track. Once Hope was staying at Appellant’s house, Appellant reached out to 

Hope’s father to ask if there were any updates on Hope, in another attempt 

to throw Hope’s parents off track. When Hope’s father informed Appellant 

that police were investigating the matter, Appellant did not admit that Hope 

was in her home. 

At the time Detective Stouch arrived at Appellant’s home, she either 

closed the door as the detective was approaching or stood next to Steven 

while he was pushing the door closed. When the detective identified himself 

and said he was looking for Hope who was a missing juvenile, Appellant stated 

Hope was not there. Such conduct amounted to a clear attempt to turn the 

detective away. The detective’s experience led him to believe that Hope was 

inside the house, so notwithstanding Appellant’s statement, the detective 

yelled out for Hope. Ultimately, Hope came outside. 
J-S28035-22

- 13 -

On this record, the evidence demonstrates that Appellant, by her words 

and/or actions, intended to obstruct or delay the administration of law. 

Appellant also took affirmative steps to do so by closing the door on the 

detective and giving the detective false information that Hope was not inside 

the house. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101; Johnson, supra; Snyder, supra; 

Gentile, supra. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as 

verdict-winner, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction. 

See Sebolka, supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judge Olson joins this memorandum.

Judge McLaughlin files a concurring memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/9/2022