Court Opinion

ID: 9943499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 17:11:04.317703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:05.911787
License: Public Domain

J-S01021-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  KEVIN SCOTT LONG                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 868 MDA 2023

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 23, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-21-CR-0002714-2020

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                       FILED: FEBRUARY 23, 2024

       Kevin Long appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his

convictions for stalking, disorderly conduct, and scattering rubbish. 1       He

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain each of his convictions.

We affirm.

       The trial court described the facts in detail as follows:

       In September 2019, Stacy Etzweiler began hearing loud explosive
       noises outside of her home located on Salt Road in Enola,
       Cumberland County.        The noises would happen at random
       intervals and sometimes occur twice a day. Simultaneously,
       Ms. Etzweiler’s sister-in-law, Stephanie Baker, began hearing the
       same explosive noises outside her home located on Westwood
       Drive in Enola. When investigating the source of the noises,
       Ms. Etzweiler and Ms. Baker both noticed that there [was] debris
       from fireworks located in their yards.           Eventually, both
       Ms. Etzweiler and Ms. Baker were able to see that a person in a
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709.1(a)(1), 5503(a)(4), and 6501, respectively.
J-S01021-24

     maroon Ford Taurus was throwing fireworks at their homes. Both
     Ms. Etzweiler and Ms. Baker were able to identify the driver of the
     vehicle as . . . Kevin Long. Ms. Etzweiler and Ms. Baker knew
     [Long] because he had previously dated Tracy Baker,
     Ms. Etzweiler’s sister and Ms. Baker’s sister-in-law. Tracy Baker
     lived in Marysville, Ohio at the time, and had a protective order
     against [Long].

            At trial the Commonwealth offered the testimony of both
     Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler. Ms. Etzweiler testified . . . that she
     lives on Salt Road, a residential street in Enola, in a single family
     home with her husband. Ms. Etzweiler stated that she started
     hearing noises outside her home in September 2019. She said
     that the noises sounded like “fireworks or M80s.” The noises
     would occur both in the morning and in the evening, and would
     sometimes happen twice a day. She stated that she had heard
     the noises before, but started writing the occurrences down in
     September 2019. Later, when she started noticing that the noises
     seemed to be directed at her house, she would try to look out her
     windows to see if she could find the source. On several instances,
     she would see a “flash” followed by a “boom.” She would then
     see a maroon Ford Taurus driving away from her house. She was
     able to identify the driver of the vehicle as [Long], whom she had
     previously met in person.

            Ms. Etzweiler testified that the incidents continued to occur
     through December 2019. Between September and December
     2019, there were 18 instances total. Ms. Etzweiler described the
     fireworks as “explosive . . . it made a loud noise, and it flashed
     big lights . . . so even at night you could see through my door lit
     up.” She also found debris from the fireworks under her vehicles
     and in the shrubbery and grass of her front yard. Ms. Etzweiler
     filed a complaint with the East Pennsboro Township Police and
     gave them the debris found in her yard.

           Ms. Etzweiler testified that she was very worried that the
     fireworks would cause her property to catch fire. Additionally,
     many of the incidents occurred when she was home alone, after
     her husband had left for work. Her biggest worry, however, was
     that a firework would be thrown at her house while she was out
     of the house, and she would return to find everything burning.

           The repeated occurrence of these incidents prompted
     Ms. Etzweiler to install cameras on the front of her house, directed
     at her driveway. Ms. Etzweiler provided the videos to the East

                                     -2-
J-S01021-24

     Pennsboro Township Police, and the Commonwealth introduced
     them at trial, where they were published to the jury. In the video,
     a car approaches Ms. Etzweiler’s home, followed by a white flash.
     The driver of the vehicle cannot be seen from the video, but
     Ms. Etzweiler testified that she is able to see more clearly from off
     camera and was able to identify both [Long] and his vehicle.

           The Commonwealth then offered the testimony of Stephanie
     Baker. Ms. Baker testified that she began hearing fireworks
     outside her home, located on Westwood drive in Enola, in
     September of 2019. She stated that the fireworks were “random,”
     occurring as early as 6:00 in the morning or late into the evening.
     She further stated that sometimes they would hear the explosions
     once a day, and other times, several times a day. After two
     months of continued incidents, Ms. Baker noticed that the
     fireworks were directed at her home, as she continued to find
     debris in her yard, driveway and flowerbeds.

           Ms. Baker testified that she had seen the person throwing
     fireworks from a car in front of her house in September 2019. She
     was able to identify that person as [Long], having met him in
     person on one previous occasion, 4 years prior to the incidents
     occurring. Ms. Baker testified that she saw [Long] light the
     firework in his vehicle and throw it out the driver’s side window
     toward her house. The firework then landed on her property.
     Ms. Baker observed [Long] throw a firework at her home one
     other time between the first observation and December 2019.
     She saw firework debris in her yard and heard explosions 10 to 15
     additional times. Ms. Baker testified that the explosive noises
     were accompanied by flashes of light and a shower of sparks.

           Ms. Baker testified that she was afraid that one of the
     fireworks would set her house on fire. Ms. Baker further testified
     that her neighbors also noticed the fireworks, and had asked her
     about them.

            The Commonwealth then offered the testimony of Officer
     Ryan Leen with the East Pennsboro Township Police. Officer Leen
     testified that he spoke with Ms. Etzweiler, Ms. Baker, and [Long].
     [Long] admitted to Officer Leen that he had been setting off
     fireworks in the area of Westwood Village and West Fairview, but
     he did not respond when asked whether he had set them off in
     front of Ms. Etzweiler and Ms. Baker’s homes.

           [Long], after being advised of his rights against self-
     incrimination, elected to testify. [Long] testified that he currently

                                     -3-
J-S01021-24

      lives with his [mother] in Halifax, Dauphin County, but he grew
      up in East Pennsboro Township. [Long] stated that he still has
      friends in the area that he visits regularly. [Long] presented a
      hand-drawn map of the area upon which he marked the
      residences of several friends and family members and his
      childhood home.

            A sister of one of [Long]’s friends lives right near Salt Road,
      and [Long] testified that he and his friend were in that area
      “playing tag passing each other in cars.” He stated that he had
      purchased fireworks “for the holidays,” and he and his friend were
      setting them off in the area. [Long] stated that he visits with
      friends in East Pennsboro Township “every chance he can get.”

             [Long stated that he told Officer Leen that he and his friend]
      “were being idiots.” [Long] admitted that he and his friend had
      discussed the ramifications of setting off the fireworks, including
      upsetting people or scaring pets, and agreed to “knock it off,”
      because they would get in trouble. [Long] admitted to having
      “issues” with [Ms.] Baker, but denied intending to cause harm to
      her sister or sister-in-law. [Long] stated that he did not even
      really know the exact houses in which they live.

            On cross-examination, [Long] admitted that the car
      involved in the fireworks incidents “looked like [his] car,” and that
      he uses that road every day. [Long] stated that he threw many
      fireworks on that road, and not just in front of Ms. Etzweiler’s
      home. [Long] admitted to throwing over 1,000 firecrackers in that
      area, and that he got “totally out of control with it.”

            The Commonwealth then offered a Facebook posting from
      [Long’s] Facebook page, in which [Long outlined] his version of
      the events. The drawing, entitled “Gas Lighter Drama,” references
      “Enola,” “600 crackers,” “sisters,” “OH-PA,” and “West Fairview.”
      [Long] admitted to making the Facebook post, but said that he did
      so after his arrest.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/18/23, at 1–7 (record citations omitted).

      Following trial on March 30, 2023, a jury found Long guilty of stalking

and disorderly conduct. The trial court found Long guilty of scattering rubbish.

The trial court sentenced Long to probation and a fine. Long timely appealed.

                                      -4-
J-S01021-24

Long and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 1925.

      On appeal, Long challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain

each of his convictions. This Court’s review of a sufficiency challenge follows

these well-settled principles:

      A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law,
      subject to plenary review. When reviewing a sufficiency of the
      evidence claim, the appellate court must review all of the evidence
      and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
      favorable to the Commonwealth, as the verdict winner. Evidence
      will be deemed to support the verdict when it establishes each
      element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the
      accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth need
      not preclude every possibility of innocence or establish the
      defendant’s guilt to a mathematical certainty. 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. Nellom, 234 A.3d 695, 700 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Levy, 83 A.3d 457, 461 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

      In a dispute over identity, even an in-court identification by a single

witness is sufficient to establish a defendant as the perpetrator of a crime.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 180 A.3d 474, 478 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations

omitted). A lack of corroboration or the introduction of evidence contradicting

an identification goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of such evidence.

Id.

      First, Long challenges his stalking conviction. Long contends that the

statute requires proof that he targeted a specific individual. Although Long

                                      -5-
J-S01021-24

admits that he often set off fireworks in various neighborhoods, he insists that

he did not intend to target the two complainants. Long notes that he had

friends and family in the area, and he highlights the lack of testimony that he

even knew where Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler lived.

      Long is correct that the stalking statute refers to actions against another

person.   In relevant part: “A person commits the crime of stalking when the

person . . . 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.A. § 2709.1(a)(1) (emphasis

added).

      Long’s challenge fails, however, because there was sufficient evidence

for the jury to find that Long targeted Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler by setting

off fireworks by their homes. The witnesses identified Long as the person in

the maroon Ford Taurus who threw the fireworks.         See Johnson, supra.

They testified that he did so numerous times over several months, including

in the early mornings and late evenings. The jury could reasonably find that

Long was the person who threw fireworks at the homes of Ms. Baker and

Ms. Etzweiler, intending to cause them substantial emotional distress.

      As further evidence that the complainants were not mere accidental

victims, the jury could consider Long’s post-arrest drawing on Facebook.

Reflecting his intent at the time that he was throwing fireworks, the jury could

                                      -6-
J-S01021-24

find that Long drew Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler under emotional distress with

arrows connecting them to the other people involved in his case.

Commonwealth Exhibit 2 (excerpt).

      From the evidence at trial, the jury could reject Long’s explanation and

find that Long intended to target Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler. Therefore, the

evidence is sufficient to sustain Long’s conviction for stalking.   Long’s first

challenge fails.

      Second, Long challenges his conviction for disorderly conduct.         He

contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he created a

“hazardous or physically offensive condition” by throwing fireworks.      Long

notes that the trial evidence was limited to the loud sound of the fireworks

and the fear of the complainants that they would cause a fire. Also, Long

argues again that the eyewitness identifications were unreliable.

      The elements of disorderly conduct come from the statute: “A person is

guilty 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

                                    -7-
J-S01021-24

legitimate purpose of the actor.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4). The condition

must be either “hazardous” or “physically offensive,” terms that carry different

meanings:

      A condition is hazardous if it involves danger or risk of the
      possibility of injuries resulting from public disorders. By contrast,
      the meaning of physically offensive condition encompasses direct
      assaults on the physical senses of members of the public as
      opposed to merely morally offensive conduct. The Commonwealth
      needs to prove that the defendant created either a hazardous
      condition or a physically offensive condition, not both.

Commonwealth v. Coniker, 290 A.3d 725, 735 (Pa. Super. 2023) (quotation

marks and citations omitted).

      In this case, as noted above, the jury was free to credit the in-court

identification of Long as the person who threw the fireworks.         Johnson,

supra. Again, any challenge to witness credibility goes to the weight, not the

sufficiency, of the identification; Long did not challenge the weight of the

evidence. Id.

      Further, the jury could find that Long created a hazardous or physically

offensive condition by throwing lit fireworks near these homes. The hazard of

fireworks, even those readily available to consumers, is clear. “[F]ireworks

always explode, and a person always encounters a risk of injury from that

explosion when he uses fireworks.” Barrett v. Fredavid Builders, Inc., 685

A.2d 129, 167 (Pa. Super. 1996). The jury could also find that the loud noise

from the fireworks constituted a physically offensive condition.       Although

another section of the statute could also apply to making an unreasonable

noise, see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(2), the section under which Long was

                                      -8-
J-S01021-24

convicted does not exclude assaults on the public’s sense of hearing. The

evidence was sufficient, and Long’s second challenge fails.

      Third, Long challenges his conviction for scattering rubbish.         He

reiterates his argument that the identifications by Ms. Baker and Ms. Etzweiler

were inadequate to identify him as the person who threw fireworks from the

maroon Ford Taurus, leaving the debris that formed the basis for this crime.

As above, the trial court was free to credit this identification.   Johnson,

supra. This issue fails, and we affirm Long’s judgment of sentence.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/23/2024

                                     -9-