Court Opinion

ID: 9915171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 18:07:25.181054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:43.822656
License: Public Domain

J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 KATHRINE ANN DETWILER                :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 390 MDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 23, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-19-CR-0000015-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 GARY ROBERT KRUM                     :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 391 MDA 2023

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 23, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Criminal Division
                   at No(s): CP-19-CR-0000016-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
              v.                      :
                                      :
                                      :
 ELAINE M. BARNHART                   :
                                      :
                   Appellant          :   No. 392 MDA 2023
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 23, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-19-CR-0000092-2022

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                               FILED: JANUARY 4, 2024

       Kathrine Ann Detwiler, Gary Robert Krum, and Elaine M. Barnhart

(collectively, Appellants) appeal from their judgments of sentence,1 entered

in the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County, following their convictions

of one count each of defiant trespass.2          After careful review, we affirm

Appellants’ judgments of sentence, and we vacate the stays of sentence.3

       On September 13, 2021, Detwiler, Krum, and Barnhart attended an

advertised scheduled public meeting of the Southern Columbia School Board,

at the Southern Columbia High School library. See N.T. Jury Trial, 1/13/23,

at 65, 67. The public meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m., and an
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Detwiler, Krum, and Barnhart were charged based upon the same factual

scenario, proceeded to a consolidated jury trial, were represented by the same
counsel, and now raise the same issues on appeal. Additionally, counsel for
Appellants has filed nearly identical briefs at each docket. Accordingly, we
consolidate these appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513 (“[W]here the same
question is involved in two or more appeals in different cases, [this Court]
may . . . order them to be argued together in all particulars as if but a single
appeal.”).

2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(v).

3 On March 20, 2023, the Appellants filed, with this Court, applications for stay

of sentence at each of the above-captioned dockets. On April 13, 2023, this
Court entered orders at each of the above-captioned dockets granting each
application and staying each Appellant’s sentence. See Order, 4/13/23, at 1.

                                           -2-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

executive session was scheduled to take place after the public meeting. Id.

At an August 29, 2021 school board meeting, the Southern Columbia School

District adopted a mask mandate that was still in effect at the time of the

public meeting Appellants attended in September 2021.4 Id. at 63-64.

        Superintendent Becker testified that the public meeting was to be

recorded and streamed over the internet, as well as be open to all members

of the public so long as they comported with the school board rules. Id. at

65-66.    Superintendent Becker further stated that an executive session is

typically “closed doors,” and addresses more private functions such as student

discipline, pending litigations, and personnel matters. Id. at 66.

        On September 13, 2021, the date of the scheduled meeting, Detwiler,

Krum, and Barnhart, as well as two other individuals, arrived not wearing

masks. Id. at 67, 112. Becker and School Security Officer David Townsend

were present to greet people as they arrived. Id. at 68, 112. School Officer

Townsend had extra masks to provide to people who did not have a mask with

them.    Id. at 68, 113.      As the group of five approached the library, they
____________________________________________

4 James A. Becker, the superintendent at Southern Columbia, testified that on

August 29, 2021, he met with the school board. Id. at 59-60. At the August
29, 2021 meeting, the school board adopted the mask mandate pursuant to
the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) PL 117-2, Section 2001(i)(1),
and the Center for Disease Control’s recommendations. See N.T. Jury Trial,
1/13/23, at 59-63; see also ARP PL 117-2 § 2001(i)(1) (“A local educational
agency receiving funds under this section shall develop and make publicly
available on the local educational agency’s website, not later than 30 days
after receiving the allocation of funds described in paragraph (d)(1), a plan
for the safe return to in-person instruction and continuity of services.”). The
mask mandate was effective immediately. Id.

                                           -3-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

engaged in a discussion with School Officer Townsend, who advised them that

they had to be masked in order to stay for the public meeting. Id. at 68-69,

114. The members of the group refused to put on masks.5 Id. at 69, 114.

School Officer Townsend again informed the group that they had to wear a

mask or leave. Id. at 68-70, 113-15. Again, the Appellants refused either by

stating so outright, or failing to put on a mask. Id. at 115. School Officer

Townsend informed them that if they refused to mask, and refused to leave,

he would need to call the police. Id.          The Appellants, undeterred, continued

their refusal to mask and refused to leave.            Id.; see also id. at 138-39

(School Officer Townsend testifying that, throughout evening, Krum stated he

would not wear a mask, while Detwiler and Barnhart did not specifically state

they would not wear a mask, but refused through their actions).

       Superintendent Becker joined the conversation and told the group that

they had to either put on masks or leave the premises. Id. at 70. He further

advised the group that the school board had a mask mandate in effect. Id.

He did not individually address any of the Appellants, but rather addressed all

of them as a group.        Id.; see also id. at 58 (Commonwealth stipulating

Appellants were not individually advised to wear masks).             Still, Detwiler,

Krum, and Barnhart refused to put on a mask and refused to leave. Id. at

71. Ultimately, School Officer Townsend called the police. Id. at 115

____________________________________________

5 Initially, the two unidentified individuals also refused to wear masks.
                                                                   Id. at
69. However, one of them ultimately put on a mask, and the other left the
building. Id.; see also id. at 71.

                                           -4-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

       As a result, Superintendent Becker and the rest of the school board

decided to conduct the executive session first. Id. In part, the school board

hoped that the Appellants would either put on a mask or leave during the

executive session; additionally, the school board discussed how to handle the

situation.    Id. at 71-73.        While the executive session was conducted,

Superintendent Becker advised that all members of the public should wait in

the cafeteria, which was next door to the library. Id.

       School Officer Townsend remained in the cafeteria with the members of

the public until the conclusion of the executive session. Id. at 117. During

this time, Officer Donald Spotts of the Locust Township Police Department6

responded to School Officer Townsend’s call.7 Id. at 115-16. Officer Spotts

spoke with Krum, Detwiler, and Barnhart, as well as the other members of the

public. Id. at 146-51. Officer Spotts informed the maskless individuals that

the school had asked them to leave. Id. The Appellants still did not leave or

put on a mask. Officer Spotts ultimately left the school in order to discuss the

situation with the District Attorney. Id. at 131, 153-55.

       Shortly after Officer Spotts left, School Officer Townsend continued

talking to everyone in the cafeteria. Id. at 117-19. During this time, School
____________________________________________

6 We note that the school in question is located in Franklin Township; however,

per a municipal agreement, the Locust Township Police Department provides
police services to the school. See id. at 146.

7 Officer Spotts wore a body cam, which recorded his interactions and was
preserved and presented at trial. See id. at 101, 116 (wherein Officer Spotts’
body cam footage was presented as multiple separate exhibits, and played
multiple times).

                                           -5-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

Officer Townsend informed them that refusing to comply with the mask

mandate is not a “traffic citation,” but rather a misdemeanor offense for

defiant trespass. Id. at 118-19. Still, the Appellants refused to comply or

leave.   Id.   Shortly thereafter, another unidentified member of the public

asked the Appellants to leave because there was a concern that the school

board would cancel the public meeting due to their actions. Id. A couple of

minutes later, the Appellants left. Id. School Officer Townsend testified that

the entire series of events occurred over the span of approximately 41

minutes.   Id. at 119.    Ultimately, the public meeting occurred later that

evening, after the Appellants had left. Id. at 74.

      Officer Spotts re-entered the school, and informed School Officer

Townsend that the DA was not planning to file charges since the Appellants

had already left the school. Id. at 154 (Officer Spotts reading police report).

School Officer Townsend indicated that he would inform Superintendent

Becker. Id. Subsequent to this event, the school board reached out the DA

and informed him that the school board wished to press charges. Id. at 155-

56.

      On November 8, 2021, the Appellants were charged with one count each

of defiant trespass. On April 1, 2022, the Appellants filed a joint petition for

habeas corpus relief. On June 17, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing,

after which it denied Appellants’ habeas corpus petition. On January 13, 2023,

the Appellants proceeded to a consolidated jury trial, after which they were

                                     -6-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

convicted as charged. The trial court deferred sentencing and ordered the

preparation of pre-sentence investigation reports.

      On February 23, 2023, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing

and sentenced each Appellant to 12 months’ probation for their respective

convictions of defiant trespass. Additionally, the trial court imposed, upon

each Appellant, a $1,000 fine, and ordered them to pay the costs of

prosecution, and to complete 50 hours of community service.

      The Appellants did not file post-sentence motions. The Appellants filed

timely notices of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise

statements of errors complained of on appeal. The Appellants now raise the

following issues for our review:

      [1.] Whether the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the
      charge of defiant trespass . . . at the close of the Commonwealth’s
      case given that the Commonwealth stipulated that no actual
      communication was given to the Appellant[s] to leave school
      grounds by a school, center or program official, employee or agent
      or law enforcement officer?

      [2.] Whether the Commonwealth failed to establish all the
      elements for defiant trespass . . . beyond a reasonable doubt given
      that the Commonwealth stipulated that no actual communication
      was given to the Appellant[s] to leave school grounds by a school,
      center or program official, employee or agent or law enforcement
      officer?

      [3.] Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the
      Southern Columbia Area School District possessed the legal
      authority to require students and visitors to wear face masks
      where no statutory or regulatory authority exists that confers to
      school districts the power or authority to force students and
      visitors to wear face masks?

                                     -7-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23
      [4.] Where no statute or regulation authorizes public school
      districts to force students and visitors to wear masks, did the trial
      court err in instructing the jury that Southern Columbia Area
      School District had the authority to force students and visitors to
      wear face masks?

      [5.] Whether the trial court erred when it failed to allow counsel
      for the Appellant[s] to present evidence of the school officials[’]
      violation of Federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, which required
      them to provide informed consent to the Appellant[s] in order to
      require them to wear a face mask which school officials testified
      was the reason that the school officials wanted the Appellant[s] to
      leave the school premises on September 13, 2021.

      [6.] Whether the trial court erred when it sustained the
      Commonwealth’s objection to the witness being questioned about
      the failure to provide informed consent in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
      360bbb-3 relating to the use of Emergency Use Authorized only
      devices such as face masks?

Briefs for Appellants, at 7-9.

      We address Appellants’ first two issues together, as they are related. In

their first issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in failing to grant

their motion for acquittal at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence. See

Briefs for Appellants, at 25-28. Appellants contend that the Commonwealth

failed to satisfy any of the elements of the crime of defiant trespass. Id.

      In their second issue, Appellants argue that Superintendent Becker and

School Officer Townsend’s statements to “wear a mask or leave” did not

constitute “communications” to leave school grounds.             Id. at 29-34.

Appellants acknowledge that “[t]here is no question that the [Appellants]

heard [School] Officer Townsend and Superintendent Becker making the

statements about masking or leaving.” Id. at 35. However, Appellants argue

that “either or” statements are not “actual communications” as they are not

                                      -8-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

“clear, definitive, and understood by the recipient of the communication.” Id.

at 35-37. Appellants assert that it was reasonable for them to think they could

wait for further directions. Id. at 36-41. Appellants posit that there was no

evidence presented to the jury that they were asked to leave. Id. at 41-42.

      Our standard of review is as follows:

      A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of
      the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is
      granted only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to
      carry its burden regarding that charge.

      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 the 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 actually 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. Fitzpatrick, 159 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa. Super. 2017)

(citation omitted).

      The Crimes Code defines criminal trespass, in relevant part, as follows:

      § 3503. Criminal Trespass

                                     ***

                                      -9-
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

       (b) Defiant trespasser.--

          (1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
          not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
          any place as to which notice against trespass is given
          by:

                                          ***

              (v) an actual communication to the actor to leave
              school grounds as communicated by a school,
              center or program official, employee or agent or a law
              enforcement officer[.]

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(v) (emphasis added).

       Appellants’ first and second claims are belied by the record.     As we

summarized above, it is clear the Commonwealth stipulated the Appellants

were not individually warned to wear a mask or leave. See N.T. Jury Trial,

1/13/23, at 58.       However, the stipulation indicates that Appellants were

warned as a group. See id. It is equally clear from trial testimony that the

Appellants, along with two other individuals, were warned as a group about

the school board policy to put on a mask or leave the premises. See id. at

68-70, 83-84, 113-15, 118-19, 138-39, 146-51. To the extent that Appellants

argue these communications were unclear, we point out that these

communications were clear enough to the two unnamed individuals, as they

each either put on a mask or left the school in response to the

communications.8       See id. at 71; see also 115 (School Officer Townsend
____________________________________________

8 It is unclear to this Court how an “either or” statement fails to satisfy the

requirements of section 3503, or how an “either or” statement is unclear. See
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

testifying unidentified female put on mask; unidentified male left school

premises). Moreover, almost the entire sequence of events was caught either

on surveillance video or on Officer Spotts’ body cam, or both. See id. at 86-

88 (Superintendent Becker testifying high school surveillance video accurately

depicted events). These videos, combined with the accompanying testimony

from Superintendent Becker, School Officer Townsend, Officer Spotts, and

Krum, all reveal that the Appellants were informed numerous times that they

had to either put on a mask, or leave the school. See id.; see also id. at

101, 116 (Officer Spotts body cam being played at trial); Trial Court Opinion,

4/24/23, at 1, 6.

       For the same reasons, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments

that they cannot be found guilty of defiant trespass because they were not

individually informed of the mask mandate. See Briefs for Appellants, at

35, 41-42. The language of section 3503 does not require each “actor” be

separately and personally given notice to leave. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1902 (“The

singular shall include the plural, and the plural, the singular. Words used in

the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter.”). Taking the

evidence as a whole, and including the fact that Appellants conceded that they
____________________________________________

Briefs for Appellants, at 35-37. As noted, the record before us clearly reflects
that the two options presented to the Appellants were (1) put on a mask in
accordance with the mask mandate; or (2) leave the school. See N.T. Jury
Trial, 1/13/23, at 68-70, 83-84, 113-15, 118-19, 138-39, 146-51; id. at 106
(Superintendent Becker testifying that if Appellants had put on a mask, they
would have been allowed to stay); see also Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/23, at
1, 6. Because Appellants elected not to put on a mask, they only had one
option remaining, to leave the school premises.

                                          - 11 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

were informed as a group and were all aware of the mask mandate,

Appellants’ first two claims fail and they are afforded no relief.

      We address Appellants’ third and fourth claims together as they are

related. In their third and fourth claims, which Appellants raise together in

their argument sections, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in issuing

a jury instruction that the Southern Columbia Area School District had the

authority to issue a mask mandate.        See Briefs for Appellants, at 43-58.

Appellants assert that the trial court’s instruction was an inaccurate statement

of law because the school board expressly lacked the authority to issue a mask

mandate pursuant to Corman v. Acting Secretary of Pennsylvania

Department of Health, 266 A.3d 452 (Pa. 2021). See Briefs for Appellants,

at 48-58.

      Pennsylvania courts are generally afforded “broad discretion in phrasing

[jury] instructions, and may choose [their] own wording so long as the law is

clearly adequately and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration.

Only where there is an abuse of discretion or an inaccurate statement of law

is there reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 738, 754

(Pa. Super. 2014).

      The trial judge gave the following jury instruction on mask mandates:

      There’s another swirling issue and that is the power of school
      boards, what powers do school boards have. I’m telling you the
      law on this. . . .

      The legislature has delegated to the board of directors of any
      school district the power to permit use on the school grounds and
      buildings for certain proper purposes under such rules and

                                     - 12 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23
       regulations as the board may adopt. The mask mandate adopted
       by the Southern Columbia Area school board on August 29, 2021,
       was a lawful exercise of that authority at that time and
       continuing through into September 13, 2021.

N.T. Jury Trial, 1/13/23, at 227-28 (emphasis added).

       With regard to Appellants’ third and fourth claims, we rely upon and

adopt the trial court’s thorough and well-written opinion.9 See Trial Court

Opinion, 4/24/23, at 11-17.          In so doing, we emphasize the trial court’s

following analysis:

       [T]his court is not a “super school board” which exists to second[-
       ]guess rules and regulations promulgated by school boards. As in
       [Duffield v. School Dist., 29 A. 742 (Pa. 1894)] and [Jacobson
       v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)], where the courts noted
       that vaccinations may or may not have prevented smallpox, we
       can accept for purposes of this argument that masks may or may
       not mitigate the spread of COVID-19. We are not taking a position
       on that in this [o]pinion. As stated in Duffield, we are not
       adjudicating whether the wearing o[f] masks [is] “absolutely right
       or not.” . . . [A]gain to quote Duffield, we are to determine
       whether the [m]ask [m]andate was “reasonable in view of the
       [then-]present state of medical knowledge and the concurring
       opinions of the various boards and officers charged with the care
       of the public health.” Duffield, 29 A. at 743. More specifically,
       we find that one reasonable interpretation of the science at the
       time was that masks inhibit the spread of COVID-19, especially in
       view of the CDC Guidelines in effect at the adoption of the [m]ask
       [m]andate[, (Commonwealth Exhibit 2),] which expressed one
       scientific school of thought. . . . [T]he [school b]oard is the entity
       vested with broad discretion to make these policy decisions. . . .
____________________________________________

9 Briefly, we note that in Corman, our Supreme Court declared the “Order of

the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health Directing Face
Coverings in School Entities,” issued on September 9, 2021, (DoH Order) void
ab initio. See Corman, supra. However, as we noted supra, the Southern
Columbia Area school board enacted its mask mandate nine days before the
DoH Order was issued. Further, the school board relied not upon the DoH
Order, as the Appellants seem to suggest, but upon the CDC’s
recommendations and the ARP. See supra, at n.3.

                                          - 13 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23
       It is not the function of this court to second-guess policies of the
       [school b]oard.

Id. at 15-16 (emphasis in original).

       The trial court, having so found, was well within its discretion to issue

the jury instruction that the school board was within its authority to

promulgate rules for Southern Columbia Area School District. See id. at 11-

17; see also Antidormi, supra. Accordingly, Appellants’ are afforded no

relief on these claims.10

       In their fifth and sixth claims, which we address together, Appellants

argue that the trial court erred in prohibiting evidence regarding the

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of masks pursuant to Federal Food Drug

and Cosmetic Act, particularly to 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3.          See Briefs for

Appellants, at 60-67. Appellants assert that under section 360bbb-3, a mask

is a “product” and that administration of that “product,” even by a

supermarket chain or, in this case, a school board, requires that the distributor

inform the intended wearers of masks of the benefits and risks of wearing

____________________________________________

10 In so deciding, we are cognizant that this Court is expressly prohibited from

being a “super school board.” See Regan, et al, v. Stoddard, et al, 65 A.2d
240, 242 (Pa. 1949) (“a court is not a super Board of directors”); Detweiler
v. School Dist. Of Borough of Hatfield, 104 A.2d 110 (Pa. 1954) (courts
should not interfere with policy decisions of school authorities so long as they
act in good faith within their statutory powers); see also Zebra v. School
Dist. Of the City of Pittsburgh, 296 A.2d 748, 750 (Pa. 1972) (“It is only
when the board transcends the limits of its legal discretion that it is amenable
to the injunctive processes of a court of equity.”). Furthermore, we reiterate
to the parties that this Court’s review is whether the trial court erred, not
whether the school board’s policies exceeded the bounds of its legislative
authority.

                                          - 14 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

masks. See Briefs for Appellants, at 60-67. Appellants contend that absent

this “informed consent,” the school board acted outside the bounds of federal

law. Id. at 65-67.

      Preliminarily, we rely upon and adopt the trial court’s analysis on these

issues as well. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/23, at 17-20. Moreover, it is

unclear from Appellants’ argument how this evidence is relevant to whether

they were trespassing. See Commonwealth v. Collins, 888 A.2d 564, 57

(Pa. Super. 2005) (“The threshold inquiry with admission of evidence is

whether the evidence is relevant.”); Pa.R.E. 402 (“Evidence that is not

relevant is not admissible.”); see also N.T. Jury Trial, 1/13/23, at 90-91 (trial

court sustaining Commonwealth’s objection to this evidence as irrelevant).

Appellants cite to no legal authority for their position. Appellants had no legal

authority to support these claims at the time of trial, and they do not have

any now. Consequently, Appellants are afforded no relief. The parties are

directed to attach a copy of the trial court opinion in the event of further

proceedings.

                                     - 15 -
J-A23007-23
J-A23008-23
J-A23009-23

     Judgments of sentence affirmed. Stay of sentence vacated.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/4/2024

                                 - 16 -
•                                                                             I
                                                                        ·-ORIGINAL
                                                                        Circulated URIG NAL

    COMMONWEALTH OF
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
                    PENNSYLVANIA,                  :IN THE
                                                   IN      COURT OF
                                                       THE COURT   OF COMMON    PLEAS
                                                                      COMMON PLEAS
                                                   :OF      26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                                                    OF THE 28"
                     vs.                           :COLUMBIA COUNTY
                                                   .COLUMBIA   COUNTY BRANCH,
                                                                        BRANCH, PA
                                                                                 PA
                                                   :CRIMINAL DIVISION
                                                   .CRIMINAL  DIVISION
    KATHERINE
    KA THERINE ANN DETWILER,
                 Defendant                         :NO. 15-CR-2022
                                                   .NO.

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,              JN
                                               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                               :OF THE 26
                                               ·OF     26"T"JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                     vs.                      ::COLUMBIA
                                                COLUMBIA COUNTY BRANCH,
                                                                   BRANCH. PA
                                               :CRIMINAL
                                               ·CRIMINAL DIVISION
    GARY ROBERT KRUM,
    GARY ROBERT KRUM,
             Defendant
             Defendant                          :.NO.
                                                  NO. 16-CR-2022

    COMMONWEALTH
    COMMONWEAL TH OF
                  OF PENNSYLVANIA,
                           JN
                     PENNSYLVANIA,            COMMON-PLEAS
                           IN THE COURT OF COMMON        PLEAS
                           :OF      26TH JUDICIAL DISTRI
                           OF THE 26"             DIS f#CT2'
                                                       -   T
                vs.      :·COLUMBIA
                            COLUMBIA COUNTY
                                       COUNTY   BRANCH)    Pf
                                                           P• -•          BRANCH             7
                           :CRIMINAL  DIVISION
                            CRIMINAL DIVISION               g '',
                                                      e
    ELAINE
    ELAINE M.
           M. BARNHART,
              BARNHART,                          • r,t --
                                                            E   t
               Defendant  :·NO.
                            NO.92-CR-2022
                                                       es»
               Defendant        92-CR-2022            ei-•    - or
                                                                 T1                              r

                                                                                cc
                                                                                         zt
                                                                                         C
    APPS    NOES:
    APPEARANCES:                                                            y
                                                                            FR-; 2-- -<
                                                                                      <
          homas E.
       {Io"as                 Esq., on behalf of the commonweah
                  E, Leipold, Esa..                  Commonwealth -          Pai, B'
                                                                     Vl a p( `
                                                                   - ia
         Grego ry A. Stapp,
         Gregory     Stapp, Esq.,
                            Esq., Attorney
                                  Attorney for
                                           for the Defendants -
                                               the Defendants _ UIa  Isf 005S U.S, ru
                                                                tja 'gt(l0gs       US, t]

    April 24, 2023
    Aprit                      Norton,
                               Norton, P.J.

                           OPINION     PA.R.A.P. 1925
                           OPINION PER PA.R.A.P.
          These consolidated
          These consolidated cases
                             cases arise
                                   arise from an episode
                                         from an episode which
                                                         which occurred
                                                               occurred on September
                                                                        on September

                    grounds of Southern Columbia Area School District
    13, 2021 on the grounds                                  District ("Southern")
                                                                      ("Southern")

    beginning around 7.00
    beginning        7:00 p.m. On
                               On that
                                  that date
                                       date and
                                            and time, aSouthern school
                                                time, a                board (the
                                                                school board (the

             meeting had been properly advertised and was scheduled to occur in a
    "Board") meeting                                                            a school

    library. The
    library. The Defendants were told
                 Defendants were told multiple times that
                                      multiple times that they
                                                          they were required to
                                                               were required    wear a
                                                                             to wear a

    mask or leave pursuant to Board policy.
                                    policy, The Defendants did not leave until about 41

    minutes passed
            passed and only
                       only after a municipal police
                                  a municipal police officer was summoned to the
                                                                             the school.
                                                                                 school
The
The Defendants were      charged with
               were each charged with one count of Defiant
                                                   Defiant Trespass
                                                           Trespass ((M-1)
                                                                      M-1) under
                                                                           under

§3503(b)(1)(v) of the
$3503(b)(1)(v)    the Crimes Code:
                             Code:

       §3503.
       $ 3503. Criminal
               Criminal trespass....
                        trespass....

       (b)
       (b) Defiant trespasser.

              (1)
              (1)AA person
                    person commits
                             commits an
                                      an offense if, knowing that
                                                              that he is not
                                                                          not
              llicensed    privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any
               icensed or privileged
               place as to which notice against
              place                                          given by:...
                                         against trespass is given  by: ...

              (v)
              (v) an
                  an actual communication toto the
                                               the actor to
                                                         to leave school
              grounds
              grounds as communicated by aaschool, center or program
                                                                  program
              official, employee    agent or a
                        employee or agent    alaw enforcement officer....

18 Pa.C.S. $
18Pa.C.S.  § 3503(b)(1)(v).
             3503(b)(1v). The relevant section also provides this defense:

       (c) Defenses.
       (c) Defenses. — It is a
                             a defense to prosecution under this section that:...
                                                                         that. ...

       (2)
       (2) the premises were
                        were at                            of the
                               at the time open to members of the public and the
       actor complied
             complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to
                                                                    lo or
       remaining in the
                    the premises....

18 Pa.C.S. $3503(c)(2).
18Pa.CS.   § 3503(c)(2). Of note, considering
                                  considering the first two of the Defendants'

assignments
assignments of error, is that nowhere in the statute does it say
                                                             say that an
                                                                      an "actual
                                                                         "actual

communication" must occur by
                          by segregating
                             segregating the Defendant away
                                                       away from all other people
                                                                           people to

effect a
       aone-on-one communication. After a
                                        ajury trial on January 13, 2023, each of the

Defendants
Defendants were convicted of
                          of the single
                                 single count            Trespass ((M-1)
                                        count of Defiant Trespass   M-1) charged
                                                                         charged

against them.
against them. Each
              Each Defendant
                   Defendant was sentence on
                             was sentence on February
                                             February 23,
                                                      23, 2023
                                                          2023 to pay tthe
                                                               to pay  he costs  of
                                                                           costs of

prosecution, afine of $1,000.00,
prosecution, a        $ 1,000.00, to undergo
                                     undergo 12 months of probation
                                                          probation and to render 50

hours of community service.

      On April 1,
               1, 2022, the Defendants filed a
                                             a Petition for Writ
                                                            Writ of
                                                                 of Habeas
                                                                    Habeas Corpus
                                                                           Corpus in

each of the three
            three ((3)
                    3) above captioned cases, all of which have been consolidated. The

                                             2
                                             2
1.

     issue at
     issue at a
              ahearing
                hearing on
                        on a
                           a Petition
                             Petition for
                                      for Writ of Habeas
                                          Writ of        Corpus is
                                                  Habeas Corpus is whether
                                                                   whether the
                                                                           the

     Commonwealth can prove a
                            aprima facie case. To meet this burden, the

                       present some evidence, which, if believed, would satisfy the
     Commonwealth must present

                           charged:
     elements of the crime charged:

            A   prima facie case consists of evidence showing
            A prima                                            showing the existence of each
            material element of the charged offense(s) and probable cause to believe
            the defendant committed the crime(s) such that, if the evidence were
            presented
            presented at trial, the court would be warranted in submitting  submitting the case to
            the factfinder.
            the   factfinder. Commonwealth
                               Commonwealth v,v. Landis,
                                                       Landis, 2012
                                                                2012 PA PA Super
                                                                            Super 132,
                                                                                    132, 48
                                                                                         48 A.3d
                                                                                            A.3d
            432, 444444 ((Pa.
                          Pa. Super.
                               Super. 2012).
                                        2012).   If a
                                                    a defendant    wishes   to challenge
                                                                               challenge  the
            sufficiency of
            sufficiency    of the
                              the evidence
                                   evidence that     was adduced
                                               that was    adduced during
                                                                     during aapreliminary
                                                                                preliminary hearing,
                                                                                             hearing,
            the   defendant may
            the defendant      may file
                                     file a
                                          a pretrial  petition for
                                             pretrial petition for a
                                                                   a writ
                                                                     writ of
                                                                           of habeas
                                                                              habeas corpus
                                                                                       corpus in
                                                                                               in
            Common Pleas Court. Id.       Id. The Commonwealth's duty     duty at the habeas stage
                                                                                               stage
            is, once
            is,         again, to
                 once again,    to present
                                   present a  a prima
                                                prima facie           Id.
                                                        facie case. Id.

     Commonwealth v. Claffey, 2013
                  v. Claffey, 2013 PA
                                   PA Super         A.3d 780, 788
                                      Super 155, 80 A.3       788 (2013).
                                                                  (2013). In passing
                                                                             passing

     upon that
     upon that burden,
               burden, the courts must
                       the courts must accept
                                       accept all
                                              all facts
                                                  facts in
                                                        in a light most
                                                           a light most favorable to the
                                                                        favorable to the

     Commonwealth. Commonwealth
     Commonwealth.              v. Hendricks, 2007
                   Commonwealth v.            2007 PA
                                                   PA Super
                                                      Super 187,
                                                            187, 927
                                                                 927 A.2d
                                                                     A.2d 289,
                                                                          289, 291
                                                                               291

     (2007).
     (2007). The same standard is applied upon a
                                  applied upon a defense demurrer or aamotion for

     judgment of acquittal
     judgment    acquittal at the close of the Commonwealth's case in chief, which is the

     subject
     subject of the Defendants' first assignment
                                      assignment of error.

           The first
               first Commonwealth
                     Commonwealth witness
                                  witness at trial
                                             trial was Southern Superintendent, James
                                                                                James

     Becker. Mr. Becker testified that tthe
                                        he Board adopted
                                                 adopted a
                                                         aHealth and Safety
                                                                     Safety Plan
                                                                            Plan ((Ex.
                                                                                   Ex. C-1)
                                                                                       C-1)

        August 29, 2021
     on August     2021 (the
                        (the "Health
                             "Health Plan").
                                     Plan"). The Health
                                                 Heath Plan was mandated by
                                                                         by the federal

     American Rescue Plan Act §2001(i)(1) ((Public
                          Act $2001(1)(1)   Public Law 117-2, 135 Stat.
                                                                  Stat. 4), which required

          plans to coordinate resumption
     such plans               resumption of in-person
                                            in-person instruction and activities in public
                                                                                    public

     schools after COVID-19 related shut-downs.
             after €OVID-19         shut-downs. Item 3.a.
                                                     3.a. of the                     by
                                                             the Health Plan adopted by

                                                                the "[u]niversal
     the Board on August 29, 2021 states that Southern requires the "[u]niversal and correct

                                                       33
wearing
wearing of masks" as one tactic to be employed
                                      employed to resume in person presence at

Southern's school buildings.
Souther's school  buildings. The
                             The Health
                                 Health Plan
                                        Plan further states: "The
                                             further states:      District will
                                                             The District  will mandate
                                                                                mandate

masking        buildings for all students, staff, and visitors regardless
masking in all buildings                                       regardless of vaccination

status." Collectively,
         Collectively, these masking requirements adopted
                             masking requirements adopted by
                                                          by the Board in the Health

Plan will be referred to as the
                            the "Mask
                                "Mask Mandate."
                                      Mandate.

       The Defendants
       The Defendants cite
                      cite and
                           and heavily argued the
                               heavily argued the "Order of the
                                                  Order of  the Acting
                                                                Acting Secretary of the
                                                                       Secretary of the

Pennsylvania Department of Health Directing
Pennsylvania Department                     Face
                                  Directing F     Coverings in School Entities"
                                              ace Coverings           Entities" ((Ex.
                                                                                  Ex. D-

1, hereafter, the
              the "DoH         herein, ""DOH"
                  "DoH Order;" herein,   DoH" shall refer to the Pennsylvania
                                                                 Pennsylvania Department
                                                                              Department

   Health). On cross examination, Mr. Becker authenticated the DoH Order and it was
of Health).

                                September 7, 2021, nine
confirmed that it was issued on September          nine (9)
                                                        (9) days afterthe
                                                            days after the Health Plan

was approved by the Board. The DoH Order was declared void ab initio by
    approved by                                                      by the

Pennsylvania Commonwealth
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
                          Court on
                                on November
                                   November 10, 2021 (Corman v. Actinq
                                                2021 (Corman    Acting Sec'y of
                                                                    Sec'y

the Pa. Dep't of
the Pa.       of Health, 267 A.3d      568, 2021
                             A.3d 561, 568, 2021 Pa. Commw. LEXIS
                                                 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 574,
                                                                  574, *4
                                                                       4 (2021)).
                                                                          (2021))

The Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Supreme
                 Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court on December 10,

2021 (Corman
           v,v. Acting Secy.
2021 (Corman                 of the Pa.
                       Secy. of     Pa. Dep't
                                        Dep't of
                                              of Health,
                                                 Health, 2021 Pa.
                                                              Pa. LEXIS
                                                                  LEXIS 4348, 266
                                                                              266

     452 (2021)).
A.3d 452 (2021)). The Supreme Count
                              Court held that the DoH did not follow the process

required for issuance of the DoH Order and, as such, it was invalid and void ab initio.
required

Corman         adjudicate the prerogative
Gorman did not adjudicate     prerogative of local school districts to erect protective
                                                                             protective

conditions to
conditions    the entry
           to the entry to or presence
                        to or presence within
                                       within school buildings such
                                              school buildings such as mask wearing.
                                                                    as mask wearing.

Since the
Since the DoH
          DoH Order
              Order was
                    was not
                        not in
                            in effect when the
                               effect when     Mask Mandate
                                           the Mask Mandate was adopted, and
                                                            was adopted, and given
                                                                             given

that
that itit is
          is void
             void ab initio, the
                             the DoH Order and
                                 DoH Order and its
                                               its masking
                                                   masking requirement
                                                           requirement are
                                                                       are inapposite
                                                                           inapposite to
                                                                                      to this
                                                                                         this

case. Also of note is the fact that the Mask Mandate was promulgated
                                                         promulgated under an act of

                                              4
'

    Congress (the
    Congress      American Rescue
             (the American Rescue Plan Act) and
                                  Plan Act) and not under tthe
                                                not under  he rule
                                                               rule making
                                                                    making authority
                                                                           authority of
                                                                                     of

    the
    the DoH which was
        DoH which     determined in
                  was determined in Gorman
                                    Corman to have been
                                           to have been inappropriately
                                                        inappropriately exercised by
                                                                        exercised by

    the DoH. The jury
                 jury was instructed on the dates, contents and legal effects
                                                                      effects (or,
                                                                              (or, as to the

    DoH Order,
    DoH Order, the
               the void
                   void ab initip
                           initio effect)
                                  effect) of
                                          of the
                                             the Health Plan, the
                                                 Health Plan, the DoH
                                                                  DoH Order and the
                                                                      Order and the District
                                                                                    District

    Attorney's Memorandum dated
    Attorney's Memorandum dated September
                                September 9,
                                          9, 2021
                                             2021 relating
                                                  relating to trespassing
                                                              trespassing and mask
                                                                          and mask

    mandates ((Ex.
    mandates   Ex. D-9).

           Mr. Becker
           Mr. Becker next
                      next authenticated Ex. C-2,
                           authenticated Ex.      the CDC
                                             C-2, the CDC mask
                                                          mask wearing
                                                               wearing recommendation
                                                                       recommendation

    of August
       August 12, 2021, issued 17 days
                                  days before the Mask Mandate was adopted by the

    Board
    Board (the
          (the "CDC Guideline"). Mr. Becker confirmed that the CDC Guideline
               CDC Guideline).

    recommended that masks should be worn as one means of protecting against the

    transmittal
    transmittal of COVID-19 and
                of COVID-19 and that     Mask Mandate
                                that the Mask Mandate was
                                                      was drafted not exclusively
                                                          drafted not exclusively based
                                                                                  based

    upon,
    upon, but in consideration
          but in consideration of,
                               of, that
                                   that CDC Guideline. The
                                        CDC Guideline.     Health Plan
                                                       The Health Plan ((Ex.
                                                                         Ex. C-1)
                                                                             C-1)

                   guidelines and specifically
    references CDC guidelines     specifically states that
                                                      that "CDC
                                                           CDC and PA DoH

    recommendations will
    recommendations will be implemented to
                         be implemented to the extent practicable
                                           the extent practicable for
                                                                  for mitigation
                                                                      mitigation policies in
                                                                                 policies in

    line with the
    line      the most
                  most up
                       up to date guidance."
                          to date guidance." ((Ex.
                                               Ex. C-1,
                                                   C-1, p.
                                                        p. 5 of 7).
                                                           5 of 7). It
                                                                    It is
                                                                       is clear
                                                                          clear that,
                                                                                that, on
                                                                                      on August
                                                                                         August

    29,
    29, 2021 and September
        2021 and           13, 2021,
                 September 13, 2021, the
                                     the most up to
                                         most up to date
                                                    date recommendation
                                                         recommendation from
                                                                        from the
                                                                             the CDC
                                                                                 CDC

    was for
    was     people to
        for people    wear masks
                   to wear masks in
                                 in all indoor public
                                    all indoor public settings
                                                      settings.

           Mr. Becker
           Mr. Becker testified
                      testified that
                                that a Board meeting
                                     a Board         was advertised
                                             meeting was            to be
                                                         advertised to    held in
                                                                       be held in the school
                                                                                  the school

    library on September
    library    September 13, 2021 at 7.00
                                     7:00 p.m.
                                          p.m. The three
                                                   three (3)
                                                         (3) Defendants and two
                                                                            two (2)
                                                                                (2) other

    persons entered the library
    persons             library without masks along
                                              along with several other members of the

    public
    public who did wear
           who did wear masks.
                        masks. Mr.
                               Mr. Becker
                                   Becker stated
                                          stated that
                                                 that school
                                                      school security
                                                             security Officer
                                                                      Officer David
                                                                              David

             approached those without masks and told them that there was a
    Townsend approached                                                  aschool-wide

                                                  5
                                                  5
k
'

    masking
    masking policy
            policy and that they
                            they would
                                 would need to
                                            to wear amask or leave
                                               wear a        leave the building. Of
                                                                   the building. Of the
                                                                                    the

    five
    five ((5)
           5) members of the public
                             public who were not wearing        one ((1)
                                                 wearing masks, one   1) person
                                                                         person left, one
                                                                                      one ((1)
                                                                                            1)

    person put aamask on and the three
                                 three (3)
                                       (3) Defendants did not put on aamask and did not

    leave. According to Mr.
                        Mr. Becker, Officer
                                    Officer Townsend told tthe
                                            Townsend told  he three
                                                               three (3)
                                                                     (3) Defendants again
                                                                                    again

    that they needed to wear a
                             amask or leave the premises,
                                                premises. Mr. Becker himself also told

    the Defendants that they needed to wear a
                                            a mask or leave. These multiple

                   of "mask
    communications of  mask or leave" were given by Mr. Becker and Officer Townsend to

    the group of
    the group of three
                 three (3)
                       (3) Defendants,
                           Defendants, who
                                       who were
                                           were together in a
                                                together in   group. The
                                                            a group. The Defendants
                                                                         Defendants did
                                                                                    did

    not "mask
    not          leave" for a
        "mask or leave      aperiod of at least 41 minutes. At trial, the DA stipulated to the

    same facts
    same facts to which
                  which he
                        he stipulated
                           stipulated at
                                      at the Habeas Corpus
                                         the Habeas Corpus hearing
                                                           hearing on June 17,
                                                                   on June 17, 2022:
                                                                               2022:

           "We would
           We           stipulate there was
                would stipulate         was no personal             given to
                                                 personal directive given to any
                                                                             any or each
           of the
              the three
                  three Defendants individually."
                                      individually.

    (Hereafter, the
    (Hereafter, the "Stipulation").
                    Stipulation")

           At
           At trial,
              trial, the
                     the DA brought out
                         DA brought     evidence from
                                    out evidence      Mr. Becker,
                                                 from Mr. Becker, Officer
                                                                  Officer David Townsend
                                                                          David Townsend

    and
    and township police
                 police officer Donald Spotts
                                       Spotts that the
                                                   the Defendants were present
                                                                       present and were

    collectively and actually told
                              told as
                                   as a
                                      a group that they      required to
                                                   they were required    put on a
                                                                      to put    amask or

              premises. The DA argued
    leave the premises,        argued that the Stipulation only was intended to agree
                                               Stipulation only                 agree that

    the Defendants were
    the Defendants      not individually
                   were not individually segregated
                                         segregated and
                                                    and individually
                                                        individually told,
                                                                     told, one-by-one,
                                                                           one-by-one, that
                                                                                       that

    they had to
    they had to mask or leave.
                mask or leave. The
                               The defense
                                   defense argued to the
                                           argued to the jury otherwise. By
                                                         jury otherwise. By returning a
                                                                            returning a

    verdict of guilty,
    verdict of guilty, the
                       the jury
                           jury accepted
                                accepted the
                                         the DA's
                                             DA's argument and interpretation
                                                  argument and interpretation that, using the
                                                                              that, using the

    language of the statute, the Defendants were told to leave by
    language                                                   by "actual
                                                                  "actual communication."

                          assignment of error states that the
    The Defendants' first assignment                      the "Commonwealth
                                                              Commonwealth stipulated
                                                                            stipulated that

    no actual communication was given
                                given to the Defendant[s]
                                             Defendant[s] to leave school grounds....
                                                                          grounds...."

                                                 6
This is a
This is ablatantly  false statement
          blatantly false statement of
                                    of the Stipulation which
                                       the Stipulation which was stated. The
                                                             was stated.     Stipulation
                                                                         The Stipulation

was as is
was as is quoted
          quoted above.
                 above

       In response
       In response to
                   to the
                      the brewing
                          brewing issue,
                                  issue, and to allow
                                         and to allow for
                                                      for dealing with the
                                                          dealing with the refusal of the
                                                                           refusal of the

Defendants to
Defendants to mask
              mask or
                   or leave,
                      leave, Mr. Becker testified
                             Mr Becker  testified that he
                                                       he took
                                                          took the Board into
                                                               the Board into executive
                                                                              executive

session,
session, which occurs under Board past
                                  past practice by excusing
                                       practice by excusing all non-Board members

from the
from     library to
     the library to the cafeteria. At
                    the cafeteria. At that, the public,
                                      that, the         including the
                                                public, including the three
                                                                      three (3) Defendants,
                                                                            (3) Defendants,

went to
went    the cafeteria.
     to the cafeteria. The
                       The Defendants
                           Defendants were
                                      were the only persons
                                           the only persons in
                                                            in the cafeteria without
                                                               the cafeteria without

masks. Mr.
masks. Mr. Becker
           Becker stated
                  stated that
                         that the executive session
                              the executive session lasted
                                                    lasted approximately
                                                           approximately 45 minutes.
                                                                         45 minutes.

After the
After the executive
          executive session was concluded,
                    session was concluded, Mr.
                                           Mr. Becker invited the
                                               Becker invited the public back into
                                                                  public back into the
                                                                                   the

library for the conduct of the public
library                        public meeting.
                                      meeting. At that time, about 45 minutes later, the

Defendants were
Defendants were not
                not among
                    among the members of
                          the members    the public
                                      of the public who returned from
                                                    who returned from the
                                                                      the cafeteria
                                                                          cafeteria

to
to the library and
   the library and they
                   they had
                        had apparently      by that
                            apparently left by      time.
                                               that time.

       Officer Townsend,
       Officer Townsend, the
                         the Commonwealth's second witness,
                             Commonwealth's second witness, testified that, on
                                                            testified that, on

September 13,
September 13, 2021,
              2021, he was a
                    he was aschool
                             school security officer at
                                    security officer at Souther.
                                                        Southern. After
                                                                  After September
                                                                        September 13,
                                                                                  13,

2021, his job
2021, his job title
              title changed
                    changed to school police
                            to school police officer.
                                             officer. Therefore,
                                                      Therefore, Officer
                                                                 Officer Townsend
                                                                         Townsend did
                                                                                  did not
                                                                                      not

have arrest
have arrest powers
            powers on
                   on September 13, 2021.
                      September 13, 2021, Officer Townsend stated
                                          Officer Townsend        that he
                                                           stated that he observed
                                                                          observed

a
a group
  group of five
           five (5) persons without masks, including
                (5) persons                including the three
                                                         three (3)
                                                               (3) Defendants herein,

enter
enter the school library
      the school library to attend the
                         to attend the Board meeting on
                                       Board meeting on September
                                                        September 13, 2021. Officer
                                                                  13, 2021. Officer

Townsend testified
Townsend testified that
                   that he told all five
                           told all five ((5)
                                           5) of
                                              of those
                                                 those persons
                                                       persons without masks that
                                                               without masks that they
                                                                                  they

needed to
needed to mask
          mask or
               or leave
                  leave the premises. Officer
                        the premises. Officer Townsend
                                              Townsend specifically
                                                       specifically offered
                                                                    offered a
                                                                            a mask
                                                                              mask to
                                                                                   to

the
the Defendant Krum, and,
    Defendant Krurn,      according to
                     and, according to Officer Townsend's testimony,
                                       Officer Townsend's            Defendant Krum
                                                          testimony, Defendant Krum

explicitly said:
explicitly said: "I
                 "I will not wear a
                                  a mask." Of the five
                                                  five (5) persons who were unmasked,
                                                       (5) persons

                                             7
                                             7
one
one ((1)
      1) left,
         left, one
               one ((1)
                     1) put
                        put on a
                               amask
                                 mask and three ((3),
                                      and three   3), the Defendants herein,
                                                                     herein, did neither:
                                                                                 neither:

They
They stayed
     stayed inside the school building and did not put on a mask. When Officer
                                                          a mask,

Townsend told the three
                  three (3)
                        (3) Defendants that he would call the police if they did not

                                               Townsend: "go
mask or leave, Defendant Detwiler told Officer Townsend: "go ahead and call the cops

or whomever you
            you need to call," or something
                                  something to that effect. The various video evidence

entered into the record and shown to the jury
                                         jury also clearly shows that someone in the

Defendants' group stated, in the cafeteria after the Board went into executive session,

that they were engaging in "civil
                           civil disobedience." Defendant Krum was on video

extensively arguing
extensively arguing to Officers Townsend and Spotts regarding
                                                    regarding his
                                                              his "rights"
                                                                  rights" and that the

Board did not have the power to impose a "mask
                                         mask or leave
                                                 leave" mandate. On the video,

Defendant      argued: "It's
Defendant Krum argued: It's not a
                                a law, it's just aamandate."It
                                                   mandate."' It was clear that
                                                                           that

Defendant Krum knew that he was required to mask or leave and that moving
                                                                   moving the group
                                                                              group

to the cafeteria did not somehow rescinded the
                                           the "mask
                                               "mask or leave"
                                                        leave order. Defense counsel

argued, and Defendant Krum disingenuously testified, that the Defendants thought
                                                                         thought that,

when
when the Board went into executive session, the
                                            the authorities were permitting
                                                                 permitting the
                                                                            the

Defendants to remain on school premises
                               premises ((in
                                          in the cafeteria) without masks. The video

                                                              the jury's
evidence clearly belies that argument and interpretation, and the jury's verdict illustrates

that they did not buy that specious argument     interpretation. Eventually,
                                    argument and interpretation. Eventually, Officer

Townsend did call the municipal police.
                                police

       Officer Spotts from the Locust Township Police Department arrived about twenty

(20) minutes into the episode, according to Officer Townsend's testimony. Officer

         This court is still trying
         This                trying to
                                    to figure out
                                              out the relevance of that thin
                                                                        thin or non-existent
                                                                                non-existent
distinction.

                                               88
Townsend met Officer Spotts
                     Spotts in front of the school, told Officer Spotts what was going
                                                                                 going

on and the two
           two (2)
               (2) officers walked into the school together. By that time, the public,

including the three
including     three (3)
                    (3) Defendants, had been excused from the library to the cafeteria

due to the executive session that had been called. Officer Spotts and Officer

Townsend went to the cafeteria and again
                                   again told all three
                                                  three (3)
                                                        (3) Defendants that they
                                                                            they were

                                                 non-compliance
required to either mask or leave. When told that non-compliance would result in aa

Defiant Trespass charge, one person in the group of three
                                                    three (3)
                                                          (3) Defendants said to the

effect: "Oh, that's just aatraffic citation," to which Officer Townsend told the group
                                                                                 group of

three
three (3)
      (3) Defendants to the effect of: "No, itit is not just aatraffic citation.
                                                                       citation."

       This standoff went on from start to finish for a
                                                      a period of about 41 minutes.

Officer Townsend testified that the three
                                    three (3)
                                          (3) Defendants did leave after 41 minutes.

The Defendants left immediately after another member of the public in the cafeteria

complained
complained to them, telling them
                            them to mask or leave, because he wanted to get
                                                                        get on with

and attend the school Board meeting.
                            meeting. With that, 41 minutes into the episode
                                                                    episode and,

according to Officer Townsend, about 20 minutes after Officer Spotts arrived, the

Defendants
Defendants left.

       To summarize the facts, the evidence would permitted a
                                                            afinding that the Board,

on August
   August 29, 2021, promulgated a
                                a requirement that all individuals in school buildings,
                                                                             buildings,

with exceptions not claimed on this
                               this record, be masked
                                               masked (the
                                                      (the Health Plan, Ex. C-1).
                                                                  Plan, Ex. C-1). The
                                                                                  The

Board relied upon then current CDC Guidelines
                                   Guidelines ((Ex.
                                                Ex. C-2), as explicitly
                                                             explicitly set forth in the

       Plan ((Ex.
Health Plan   Ex. C-1). The CDC
                            CDC Guideline included
                                          included recommendations      persons
                                                   recommendations that persons

wear masks to inhibit the spread of COVID-19. It is clear that the CDC Guideline was a
                      the spread                                                     a

                                                 9
                                                 9
                          equally clear that the Mask Mandate in the Health Plan
recommendation, but it is equally

promulgated by
promulgated by the Board
                   Board was
                         was a
                             a requirement.
                               requirement. By virtue of its guideline,
                                                             guideline, the CDC, an
                                                                                 an

authoritative scientific body,
                         body, illustrated its opinion that masking impeded the

transmission of
transmission    COVID to
             of COVID to some degree. The
                         some degree. The Defendants
                                          Defendants entered
                                                     entered the
                                                             the school
                                                                 school building
                                                                        building

without masks and were told collectively by
                                         by "actual
                                            actual communication" multiple times by

Superintendent
Superintendent Becker, Officer Townsend
               Becker, Officer Townsend and
                                        and Officer
                                            Officer Spotts
                                                    Spotts to
                                                           to ""mask
                                                                mask or
                                                                     or leave," and
                                                                        leave," and

they
they were expressly advised of the
     were expressly            the school
                                   school Board policy
                                                policy in that regard. They
                                                                       They did not

leave immediately,
      immediately, dared the school security officer to call the police, Defendant Krum

expressly refused to wear a
expressly                 amask and the three
                                        three (3)
                                              (3) Defendants stayed 41 minutes

through
through the
        the incident and
                     and 20
                         20 minutes after police Officer Spotts
                                                         Spotts arrived. They only left

after a
      a fellow member of the public complained to them and asked them to mask or

leave so that everyone could get on with the school board meeting.

          In their
             their Concise
                   Concise Statements of
                                      of Matters
                                         Matters Complained of on Appeal, the
                                                                          the

Defendants assert 6
                  6issues. The will be dealt with in sequence,
                                                     sequence, paraphrasing the

issues:
issues

      1. This
      f,  This court
               court erred
                     erred in  failing to
                           in failing  to grant the defense
                                          grant the defense motion  to dismiss
                                                            motion to  dismiss at
                                                                               at the
                                                                                  the
close
close of the
         the Commonwealth's case due    due to
                                            to the
                                               the Defendants' claim
                                                               claim that
                                                                     that the
                                                                          the
"Commonwealth
Commonwealth stipulated
                  stipulated that
                              that no
                                    no actual
                                        actual communication
                                               communication was   given the
                                                              was given
Defendant[s] to leave school grounds...."
Defendant[s]                    grounds...."

       This assignment             falsely stated. The Stipulation was:
            assignment of error is falsely                         was: "We
                                                                        "We would

stipulate
stipulate there was no personal directive given to any or each of the three Defendants

individually." That is a
individually."         afar
                         far cry from stipulating away the Commonwealth's case by
                                                                               by

saying      no "actual
saying that no "actual communication" occurred. By rendering its verdict, the jury

accepted the Commonwealth's
accepted     Commonwealth's argument
                            argument that                     actually and
                                     that the Defendants were actualy

                                             10
                                             10
collectively
collectively communicated the directive to mask or leave. This was aaquestion for the

             jury answered it by
jury and the jury             by rendering
                                 rendering their verdict of
                                                         of "guilty."
                                                            "guilty.

       2. The second assignment
                      assignment of error is essentially
                                             essentially the same as the first and
                   hereby incorporated by
that discussion is hereby              by reference.

      3.
      3. This court
               court erred in
                           in instructing the jury that the Southern School
                                                                     School Board
had the legal authority to require persons on school premises to wear face
masks.

       School districts are granted broad general powers to enable them
                                                                   them to carry out
                                                                                 out

the
the provisions of the
                  the Pennsylvania School
                                   School Code, found
                                                found at 24 P.S. $§ 1-101 gt
                                                         24P.S.           et Se
                                                                             seq.:

       §2-211. General powers of districts
       $2-211.

       The several school districts in this Commonwealth shall be, and hereby
       are vested as, bodies corporate, with all necessary powers to enable them
       to carry
       to carry out
                out the
                    the provisions of this act.
                                           act.

24 P.S. § 2-211. These
24PS.$2211.      These include
                       include powers
                               powers specifically granted by
                                      specifically granted by the legislature or
                                                              the legislature or by
                                                                                 by

necessary implication.
necessary implication. Central Dauphin
                               Dauphin School District v.
                                       School District • American       Cas.
                                                          American Cas.Co,,
                                                                        Co., 271
                                                                             271

Pa.Super.
Pa.Super. 218, 412 A.2d
                   A.2d 892
                        892 ((1979),
                              1979), rev'd.
                                     rev'd. on       grounds, 493 Pa.
                                            on other grounds,     Pa. 254,
                                                                      254, 426 A.2d
                                                                               A.2d

94.
94. A
    A school district's powers are administered by aaboard of school directors. 24 P.S.

§
$ 3-301.

       Among the several express
       Among             express and implied
                                     implied powers
                                             powers of a
                                                       aschool board is the power
                                                                            power to

provide
provide for and administer necessary and
                                     and suitable
                                         suitable school buildings.
                                                         buildings. 24 P.S. $
                                                                    24P.S.  § 7-701.
                                                                              7.701,

School boards are vested with broad discretion to adopt
                                                  adopt "rules                as [they]
                                                        rules and regulations as [they]

may
may deem necessary and proper
                       proper' as to all functions delegated to them under the

School Code, including those
                       those as to
                                to regulation of
                                              of presence
                                                 presence on school grounds. 24
                                                                             24 P.S.
                                                                                P.S.

                                              Z1
§ 5-510, considered in conjunction
$5-510,                conjunction with
                                   with $§ 7-701.
                                           7-701, The power of aaschool
                                                                 school board to
                                                                              to

promulgate
promulgate rules and regulations regarding
                                 regarding school buildings
                                                  buildings has indeed been delegated

by the legislature,
by     legislature, is plenary,
                       plenary, and is
                                    is subject
                                       subject to aabroad exercise of discretion:

          The legislature
          The                has delegated
                legislature has   delegated to the board
                                                     board ofof school
                                                                 school directors
                                                                        directors ofof any
                                                                                       any
          school district the power to permit use of the school grounds and buildings
          for certain proper
                        proper purposes
                                purposes under such rules and regulations
                                                                     regulations as the board
          may adopt.
          may    adopt. Judicial review of the actions of a    a board must be restricted to
          the reasonableness
               reasonableness thereof:
                                   thereof: Regan,
                                             Regan, et
                                                    et al.  v. Stoddard.
                                                        al, v.  Stoddard, et
                                                                           et al.,
                                                                              al., 361
                                                                                   361 Pa.
                                                                                        Pa. 469,
                                                                                            469,
          65 A. 2d 240; Commonwealth ex rel. v. Sunbury             School District.
                                                        Sunbury School      District, 335 Pa.
                                                                                           Pa
          6, 6A. 2d
          6, 6A.    2d 279;
                        279; Wilson v.   School District
                                      v. School District of
                                                         of Philadelphia,
                                                             Philadelphia, 328
                                                                            328 Pa.Pa. 225, 195
                                                                                       225, 195
          A. 90.
          A. 90. ItIt cannot
                      cannot encompass
                             encompass consideration
                                            consideration of the wisdom of the   the action
                                                                                     action
          taken.

McKnight v. Board of Public Education, 365 Pa. 422, 427, 76 A.2d 207, 209-210
                                                                      209-210 ((1950).
                                                                                1950).

In Commonwealth
   Commonwealth v. Hall, v.
                   Hall, 309 Pa.
                             Pa. Super. 407, 455      674 ((1983),
                                             455 A.2d 674   1983), this
                                                                   this proposition

was repeated in the context of a
                               aprosecution of a
                                               aviolation of a
                                                             amandatory attendance

policy:
policy.

          "[W]hen one attacks the action of a
          "[WIhen                                    aschool board concerning matters
          committed by law to its discretion, he has a        aheavy burden as the courts
          are not prone to disturb a     a school board's decision. Indeed, they are
          without jurisdiction to interfere therewith
                                                 therewith unless it is apparent that the
          school board's conduct is arbitrary, capricious and to the prejudice of
          public interest. Lack of wisdom or mistaken judgment is insufficient."
          Farris v.
          Farris v. Swetts,
                     Swetts, 158 Pa.Super.
                                      Pa.Super. 645,
                                                   645, 648,
                                                         648, 46
                                                              46 A.2d
                                                                  A.2d 504,
                                                                         504, 505
                                                                               505 ((1946).
                                                                                     1946). InIn
          short, the courts of this Commonwealth are not         not "super"
                                                                     "super" school boards with
          superior
          superior knowledge
                     knowledge concerning
                                    concerning the administration of the public  public schools or
          the science of pedagogics. McCoy v.         v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No,  No. 12, 38
          Pa.CmwIth. 29, 36, 391 A.2d 1119, 1123
          Pa.Cmwlth.                                   1123 ((1978),
                                                               1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S.
          923, 99
          923,  99 S.Ct.
                    $.Ct 2033,
                            2033, 60    L.Ed.2d 397
                                    60 L.Ed.2      397 ((1979).
                                                         1979). See also:
                                                                       also: Zebra  v.
                                                                             Zebra v. Pittsburgh
                                                                                        Pittsburgh
          School   District, 449
              District,
          School              449 Pa.
                                    Pa. 432,
                                         432, 437, 296 A.2dA.2d 748, 750
                                                                       750 ((1972)
                                                                              1972); Christoffel v.v
                  Area School District.
          Shaler Area               District, 60 Pa.Cmwth.
                                                   Pa.Cmwlth. 17, 20, 430 430 A.2d
                                                                               A.2 726,
                                                                                     726, 728
                                                                                            728
          (1981);  O'Leary v.
          (1981); Q'Lear       , Wisecup,          Pa.Cmwlth. 538,
                                  Wisecup, 26 Pa.Cmwith.         538, 364
                                                                       364 A.2d    770 ((1976)
                                                                             A.2d 770    1976).
          "[CJourts are in
          "'[C]ourts       in no
                              no position to exercise control
                                                           control over schools
                                                                          schools and
                                                                                    and
          determine the policy
                             policy of school administration; the judgesjudges ordinarily
                                                                                 ordinarily are not
          equipped
          equipped for this immense task."           Balsbaugh, et
                                             task."' Balsbaugh,          v.
                                                                   et al. v. Rowland, 447 Pa.
          423, 431, 290 A.2d 85, 90     90 ((1972)          Wilson, et
                                              1972) citing Wilson,   et ux,
                                                                         ux. v.
                                                                             v, Philadelphia
          School District.
          School   District, et al,
                                 al., supra
                                      supra 328 Pa. at 236, 195 A.    A. at
                                                                          at 97.
                                                                             97. Therefore,
                                                                                  Therefore, inin the
                                                                                                  the

                                                      12
       absence of a   agross
                       gross abuse of discretion, courts will not second-guess
                                                                    second-guess
       policies  of the
       policies of       several boards
                    the several  boards of
                                        of school  directors. See:
                                           school directors.         Commonwealth ex
                                                               See: Commonwealth     ex
       rel. Hetrick v. Sunbury
       rel. Hetrick              School District, 335
                        Sunbury School            335 Pa.  6, 11,
                                                       Pa. 6,  11, 6 A.2d 279,
                                                                   6 A.2   279, 282
                                                                                 282
       (1939);
       (1939) Hibbs
                Hibbs v. Arensberq,
                           Arensberg, 276  Pa. 24,
                                      276 Pa.  24, 26,  119 A.
                                                    26, 119   A. 727,  728 ((1923).
                                                                 727, 728    1923).

tall,
Hall, 455 A.2d at
      455 A.2d at 676-677.
                  676-677.

       In Duffield
       In Duffield v,
                   v. School Dist., 162
                      School Dist,, 162 Pa.
                                        Pa. 476,
                                            476, 29    742 ((1894),
                                                 29 A. 742   1894), the
                                                                    the Pennsylvania
                                                                        Pennsylvania

Supreme Court dealt
Supreme Court       with a
              dealt with   case in
                         a case in which
                                   which aaparent
                                           parent sued
                                                  sued a
                                                       aschool
                                                         school district
                                                                district in
                                                                         in mandamus
                                                                            mandamus

   compel the school to admit his child who had not been vaccinated against
to compel                                                           against smallpox.
                                                                            smallpox.

The school district had adopted a
                                a policy requiring vaccination in order to attend school.

Although Duffield was
Although          was adjudicated
                      adjudicated 128
                                  128 years ago, the
                                      years ago,     propositions and
                                                 the propositions and principles
                                                                      principles set
                                                                                 set

forth in its
forth in its opinion
             opinion are
                     are those which have
                         those which have been
                                          been carried
                                               carried forward
                                                       forward in
                                                               in the
                                                                  the present School
                                                                      present School

Code and
Code and in
         in the cases set
            the cases set forth
                          forth above. In leading
                                above. In leading to
                                                  to its holding
                                                         holding that the school
                                                                 that the school district
                                                                                 district

was within
was within its
           its power
               power to
                     to condition
                        condition school
                                  school attendance
                                         attendance upon receiving a
                                                    upon receiving a smallpox vaccine,
                                                                     smallpox vaccine,

the Pennsylvania
the              Supreme Court
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized
                               recognized the distinction between
                                          the distinction between dictating
                                                                  dictating what
                                                                            what

citizen generally
citizen generally must
                  must do
                       do and
                          and regulating
                              regulating aaperson's presence within
                                           person's presence        aschool
                                                             within a        building:
                                                                      school building:

      The          board do
      The school board    do [sic) not claim
                             [sic] not claim that they can
                                             that they  can compel
                                                            compel the plaintiff
                                                                          plaintiff to
                                                                                    to
      vaccinate
      vaccinate his  son. They
                 his son.        claim only
                           They claim  only the
                                            the right
                                                right to exclude
                                                         exclude  from
                                                                  from  the
                                                                        the  schools
                                                                             schools
      those who
      those  who do
                  do not
                     not comply
                          comply with such   regulations of
                                        such regulations  of the
                                                             the city
                                                                 city and
                                                                      and the
                                                                           the board
                                                                                board of
                                                                                       of
      directors as have been thought necessary to preserve the public health   health.

Duffield, 29
Duffield, 29 A. at 742.
             A. at 742. The Duffield court
                        The Duffield court continued
                                           continued:

      Vaccination
      Vaccination may may be, or   or may
                                      may not not be, a apreventive
                                                          preventive ofof smallpox.
                                                                          smallpox. That
                                                                                       That isis a
                                                                                                 a
      question about which medical men differ and which the law affords no
      question
                  determining in a
      means of determining             asummary
                                           summary manner. A       A decided majority
                                                                                 majority of the
      medical profession
      medical    profession believe
                                 believe in in its
                                               its efficacy.
                                                   efficacy. The    municipal regulations
                                                              The municipal      regulations ofof
      many, and
      many,   and IIhave
                      have no no doubt
                                   doubt of     most, of
                                            of most,    of the
                                                           the cities
                                                               cities of
                                                                      of this
                                                                         this state   and country,
                                                                               state and   country,
      provide
      provide for
                for it.
                    it. In  the present
                        In the   present state
                                             state of
                                                    of medical    knowledge and
                                                        medical knowledge       and public    opinion
                                                                                      public opinion
      upon
      upon this subject
                  subject it would be impossible
                                              impossible for a  acourt to deny
                                                                            deny that there is
      reason for
      reason   for believing
                   believing in   in the
                                     the importance
                                          importance of   of vaccination
                                                             vaccination asas a a means
                                                                                   means ofof
      protection from
      protection   from thethe scourge
                                 scourge of  of smallpox.
                                                 smallpox. The     question is
                                                             The question     is not  one of
                                                                                  not one  of
      science in
      science   in a
                   acase
                      case like
                              like the
                                    the present.
                                         present. We We areare not
                                                               not required
                                                                    required toto determine
                                                                                   determine

                                                    13
                                                    13
       judicially whether the public
       judicially               public belief in the efficacy
                                                     efficacy of vaccination is
       absolutely right
       absolutely   right or not. We  are to consider   what is reasonable in view of
       the  present state
       the present          of medical
                     state of           knowledge and
                               medical knowledge    and the
                                                          the concurring
                                                              concurring opinions
                                                                          opinions of
                                                                                    of the
                                                                                       the
       various boards
       various            and officers
                 boards and   officers charged   with the
                                       charged with   the care
                                                           care of the public
                                                                of the public health.
                                                                              health.

Duffield, 29 A. at 742-743

       Eleven years
       Eleven

L. Ed. 643
                   742-743.

                    later, in
              years later,

       643 ((1905),
                           in Jacobson

             1905), the United States Supreme
                                                     v.
                              Jacobson v.Massachusetts,
                                          Massachusetts, 197
                                                         197 U.S.
                                                             U.S. 11,
                                                                  11, 25

                                      Supreme Court affirmed the power
                                                                      25 S.
                                                                         S. Ct.
                                                                            Ct. 358, 49
                                                                                358, 49

                                                                 power of state and

      governments to generally
local governments    generally compel all healthy
                               compel all healthy persons
                                                  persons to undergo a
                                                          to undergo asmallpox
                                                                       smallpox

vaccination, despite a
vaccination, despite athen  ongoing debate
                       then ongoing debate as
                                           as to
                                              to its
                                                 its efficacy.
                                                     efficacy. In
                                                               In so holding, the United
                                                                  so holding,     United

       Supreme Court expressly
States Supreme       expressly stated that individuals do not have aaConstitutional

liberty
liberty right to refuse
        right to        such health
                 refuse such health and
                                    and safety
                                        safety mandates
                                               mandates enacted
                                                        enacted by
                                                                by state or local
                                                                   state or local

legislative bodies:
legislative bodies:

       The     authority of
        The authority      of the      State to
                                the State      to enact
                                                   enact this     statute is
                                                            this statute    is to
                                                                               to be referred
                                                                                       referred to    what is
                                                                                                  to what    is
        commonly called
        commonly      called the   the police    power --
                                         police power      -- a  power which
                                                               a power    which the the State   did not
                                                                                         State did    not
        surrender when becoming becoming a      amember of the Union under the Constitution.
       Although     this court
        Although lhis      court has  has refrained
                                            refrained fromfrom any     attempt to define
                                                                 any attempt          define the    limits of
                                                                                              the limits    of
       that   power, yet
        that power,     yet itit has
                                   has distinctly
                                         distinctly recognized
                                                      recognized the       authority of
                                                                      the authority      of a
                                                                                            a State
                                                                                              State to to enact
                                                                                                          enact
        quarantine lawslaws and and "health
                                        "health laws
                                                  laws of of every    description;" indeed,
                                                              every description;"       indeed, allall laws
       that relate to to matters completely                          territory and
                                         completely within its territory         and which do not by      by
               necessary operation
       their necessary         operation affect the     the people
                                                              people of other States. According
                                                                                             According to
        settled principles the police power of             of aa State
                                                                  State must be held  held to
                                                                                            to embrace, at   at
        least, such reasonable regulations established      established directly by legislative
       enactment as
       enactment       as will
                            will protect
                                    protect the public
                                                    public health     and the
                                                             health and           public safety.
                                                                             the public              Gibbons
                                                                                           safety. Gibbons
       v. Ogden,
       v. Ogden, 9   9wheat.
                         Wheat. 1, 203; Railroad Company v. iusen,       v.     Husen, 95 U.S. U.S. 465,
       470; Beer
       470:    Beer Company •          v. Massachusetts,
                                           Massachusets. 97 U.S.       U.S. 25; NewNew Orleans
                                                                                          Orleans GasGas Co,Co.
       v. Louisiana Light
       v.Louisiana        Light Co.,       115 U.S.
                                    Co,, 115     U.S. 650,      661; Lawton v.
                                                         650, 661;               v. Steele, 152 0.S. U.S. 133.
                                                                                                            133.
              equally true
        It is equally   true that the   the State
                                             State maymay invest local bodies called into
       existence for       purposes of local
                     for purposes             local administration               authority in some
                                                       administration with authority
       appropriate way
       appropriate      way to  to safeguard
                                     safeguard the        public health
                                                     the public    health andand the
                                                                                   the public
                                                                                        public safety.
                                                                                                safety. TheThe
       mode
        mode or  or manner
                    manner in     in which
                                      which those       results are
                                              those results       are toto be   accomplished is
                                                                           be accomplished         is within
                                                                                                      within
       the discretion of the State, subject,    subject, of course, so far as Federal power        power is
       concerned, only
       concerned,       only to to the     condition that
                                     the condition       that no
                                                               no rule   prescribed by
                                                                   rule prescribed       by aaState,
                                                                                               State, nor
                                                                                                        nor
       any regulation
       any    regulation adopted
                             adopted by     by a
                                               alocal governmental
                                                          governmental agency agency acting
                                                                                         acting under
                                                                                                 under the the
       sanction of state legislation,
                                  legislation,    shall   contravene      the   Constitution    of  the
       United States or infringe infringe anyany right     granted or secured by
                                                   night granted                      by that instrument.

                                                          14
       A                      regulation, even if based on the acknowledged
       A local enactment or regulation,                              acknowledged
       police power
       police power of aaState, must always     yield in case of conflict with the
                                        always yield
       exercise by
       exercise  by the
                    the General
                        General Government
                                 Government of  of any
                                                   any power
                                                         power itit possesses
                                                                    possesses under
                                                                                under the
                                                                                      the
       Constitution, or with any
                             any right                            gives or
                                  right which that instrument gives      or secures.
                                                                            secures
       Gibbons v. Ogden,
       Gibbons     Ogden, 9   Wheat. 1, 210; Sinnot
                            9 Wheat.           Sinnot v.   Davenport, 22 How. 227,
                                                        v. Davenport.
            Missouri. Kansas
       243; Missouri,  Kansas & & Texas
                                  Texas Ry.
                                          Ry. Co,
                                              Co. ,v. Haber, 169 U.S. U.S. 613, 626
                                                                                626.

       We come,
       We   come, then,
                    then, toto inquire
                               inquire whether
                                         whether any any right    given, or
                                                           right given,  or secured
                                                                             secured byby the
                                                                                           the
       Constitution, is
       Constitution,   is invaded
                          invaded by  by the
                                          the statute
                                                statute as    interpreted by
                                                         as interpreted    by the state
                                                                                   state court.
                                                                                           court
       The defendant
       The  defendant insists
                          insists that
                                    that his
                                          his liberty  is invaded
                                              liberty is  invaded when
                                                                     when the
                                                                            the State
                                                                                 State subjects
                                                                                        subjects
       him
       him to           imprisonment for
            to fine or imprisonment        for neglecting         refusing to
                                                 neglecting or refusing     to submit toto
       vaccination; that aacompulsory
                               compulsory vaccination
                                                vaccination law law is unreasonable, arbitrary
                                                                                         arbitrary
            oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent night
       and oppressive,                                                       right of every
                                                                                      every
       freeman to
       freeman    to care
                     care for   his own
                            for his  own body      and health
                                            body and     health inin such way as
                                                                     such way    as to him seems
                                                                                    to him   seems
       best; and that the execution of such a                  against one who objects
                                                      a law against                objects to
       vaccination,
       vaccination, no matter
                           matter for what                     nothing short of an assault upon
                                         what reason, is nothing                               upon
       his person.
       his person. But
                     But the    liberty secured
                           the liberty   secured by by the    Constitution of
                                                        the Constitution        the United
                                                                             of the  United States
                                                                                              States
       to every                         jurisdiction does not import
          every person within its jurisdiction                      import an absolute night
                                                                                           right in
       each   person to be,
       each person         be, at
                               at all
                                   all times
                                       times and     in all
                                                and in       circumstances, wholly
                                                        all circumstances,     wholly freed
                                                                                       freed from
                                                                                               from
       restraint.
       restraint.

Jacobson, 197 U.S. at
          197 U.S. at 24-26.
                      24-26.

       Applying
       Applying these cases and propositions to the facts
                                                    facts of
                                                          of this
                                                             this case,
                                                                  case, read in
                                                                             in a light
                                                                                a light

most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict winner, it is apparent
                                                              apparent that the Board

was within its power
               power and prerogative
                         prerogative to mandate the wearing
                                                    wearing of masks inside school

buildings, including at public
buildings, including    public school board meetings
                                            meetings inside a
                                                            a school building.
                                                                     building. To

paraphrase tthe
            he cases, this court is
                                 is not aa "super
                                           "super school board" which exists to second

guess                       promulgated by
guess rules and regulations promulgated by school boards.
                                                  boards. As
                                                          As in Duffield and
                                                                         and

Jacobson, where the
Jacobson, where the courts
                    courts noted
                           noted that
                                 that vaccinations may or
                                      vaccinations may or may
                                                          may not
                                                              not have
                                                                  have prevented
                                                                       prevented

smallpox,
smallpox, we can accept
          we can accept for
                        for purposes
                            purposes of
                                     of this
                                        this argument that masks
                                             argument that masks may
                                                                 may or
                                                                     or may
                                                                        may not
                                                                            not

mitigate
mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
                       COVID-19. We are not taking
                                            taking a
                                                   aposition
                                                     position on that in this Opinion.
                                                                              Opinion.

As
As stated    Duffield, we are
   stated in Duffield,        not adjudicating
                          are not adjudicating whether
                                               whether the
                                                       the wearing or masks
                                                           wearing or masks are
                                                                            are

"absolutely right
"absolutely right or
                  or not."
                     not." Reasonable minds may
                           Reasonable minds     differ, but,
                                            may differ, but, again
                                                             again to
                                                                   to quote
                                                                      quote Duffield, we

                                                    15
                                                    15
are to determine whether the Mask Mandate was
                                          was "reasonable
                                              reasonable in view of the
                                                                    the [then']
                                                                        [then]

                 medical knowledge and the concurring opinions of the various boards
present state of medial

and officers charged with the care of the public health." Duffield, 29 A. at 743. More

specifically,
specifically, we find that one reasonable interpretation of the science at the time was

that masks inhibit the spread of COVID-19,
                                 CO\VID-19, especially in view of the CDC Guidelines in

              adoption of the Mask Mandate
effect at the adoption             Mandate ((Ex.
                                             Ex. C-2) which expressed one scientific

school of thought. There may
                         may have
                             have been other
                                       other reasonable interpretations,
                                                        interpretations, but
                                                                         but the
                                                                             the

Board is the entity
             entity vested with broad discretion to make these policy decisions. As

stated in Hall, supra, in the absence of aagross
                                           gross abuse of discretion, it is not the function

of this court to second-guess policies
                              policies of the Board. As confirmed in Jacobson by the

United States
       States Supreme Court, the
                             the Defendants had
                                            had no Constitutional right
                                                                  right to
                                                                        to exercise
                                                                           exercise

their liberty interests by being
                           being "mask
                                 mask free"
                                       free inside aaschool building. There was clearly

no abuse of discretion in promulgating the Mask Mandate.

       In Duffield, there
                    there was no requirement
                                 requirement that
                                             that all children be
                                                               be vaccinated in
                                                                             in the
                                                                                the

abstract, only that, if the children were present in school, then and only then did they
                                                                                    they

have to be vaccinated. In the present case, the Southern Board did not require the

Defendant's to don masks generally
                         generally or in the abstract. Rather, the Board promulgated

a
a policy decision that, if one wanted to be present upon school grounds, he or she had

to wear aamask.

       2 It is well documented that our country
                                         country was faced with an unprecedented
emergency when faced with the COVID pandemic. It is also well documented that
research evolved and is evolving
                          evolving to this day. It is only fair and just
                                                                    just to apply the state of
the art research and CDC recommendations as they existed on September 13, 2021.       2021
                                              16
                                              16
4. The fourth assignment of error is the same at the third: That the Southern
Board         legal authority
Board had no legal  authority to
                              to require the
                                         the wearing of masks on school
                                                                  school premises.
                                                                         premises.
The discussion of the third issue is hereby
                                     hereby incorporated by reference.

5. This court erred in prohibiting defense counsel from arguing that the Federal
Food
Food Drug  and Cosmetic
      Drug and             Act (the
                Cosmetic Act   (the ""FDCA")
                                      FDCA") and
                                              and the Emergency Use
                                                  the Emergency  Use Authorization
                                                                     Authorization
(EUA) provisions within the FDCA, found at 21 U.S.C. &$360bbb-3,
                                                        §360bbb-3, prohibited the
Southern Board
Southern  Board from implementing
                       implementing thethe Mask
                                           Mask Mandate.
                                                Mandate.

       The Defendants next argue that it was error for this court, at trial and as a
                                                                                   a matter

of law, to have prohi
                prohibited
                      bited the jury from being read and instructed on aacertain part of the

Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act
                               Act (the
                                   (the "FDCA"), specifically the Emergency Use

Authorization ((EUA)
Authorization                                   §360bbb-3. At argument, outside tthe
                EUA) statute found at 21 U.S.C. $360bbb-3.                       he
presence of the jury,
                jury, defense counsel argued that aamask is aa "product"
                                                               product" under the

FDCA and the EUA statute and that, prior to
                                         to "administration"
                                            "administration" of that
                                                                that "product," even by

a
a supermarket chain, the supermarket or other distributor must inform the distributees

of masks of the benefits and risks of masks. When asked if he had any case citations

interpreting the FDCA in tthe
                          he manner argued by him, defense counsel had none to offer.
This court determined that such an interpretation was absurd and ruled that no party

could
could present evidence
              evidence or make argument to
                                        to the
                                           the jury relating to the
                                                                the FDCA or the
                                                                            the EUA
                                                                                EUA

statute.

       The EUA statute contained within the FDCA sets forth the statutory guidelines for

emergency
emergency authorization of
                        of ""products"
                             products" ((including
                                         including drugs, devices, and biological

products) by the Secretary                     Services ("the
                 Secretary of Health and Human Services  ("the Secretary"). See

generally S§ 360bbb-3(a)(1).
             360bbb-3(a)(1). The Secretary
                                 Secretary "may
                                           "may make aadeclaration that the

circumstances exist justifying
                    justifying the authorization" for aaproduct on the basis of
                                                                             of "a
                                                                                "a

                                             17
                                             17
determination by the Secretary
determination by     Secretary that there
                                    there is
                                          is aapublic health emergency...
                                                             emergency ... that
                                                                           that affects,
                                                                                affects,

or has a
       asignificant
         significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of

                                                        abiological, chemical,
United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a

radiological,
radiological, or nuclear agent or agents,
                                  agents, or a
                                             a disease or condition that may be

attributable to such agent or agents." $§ 360bbb-3(b)(1(C)
                                          360bbb-3(b)(1)(C) ((Emphasis
                                                              Emphasis added). For

                 a "product"
authorization of a "product" for emergency use, the FDCA requires that, "to
                                                                        "to the extent

practicable,"
practicable," steps be taken to ensure that individuals
                                            individuals "on
                                                        "on whom the product is

administered" are informed
                  informed "of
                           "of the option to accept or refuse administration of the

product, of tthe
             he consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of
the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks."

§360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I ll). ((Emphasis
$360bbb-3(e(1)(A{ii)(1II).      Emphasis added).

       In Lloyd v.
                v.Sch,
                   Sch. Bd,
                        Bd. of
                            of Palm Beach Cty., 570 F. Supp.
                                                       Supp 3d 1165
                                                               1165 (S.D. Fl. 2021),
                                                                    (S.D. FI  2021)

the history of EUA of masks was traced:

       On February 4, 2020, the Secretary determined there to be aa "public   "public
                emergency that has a
       health emergency                   significant potential to affect national security
                                        a significant                              security
       or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that
       involves a anovel
                     novel ((new)
                             new) coronavirus
                                   coronavirus ((nCoV)
                                                  nCoV) first detected in Wuhan City,
                                                                                    City,
       Hubel Province, China in 2019
       Hubei                          2019 ((2019-nCoV"
                                             2019-nCoV)." See Determination of Public
       Health Emergency, 85 Fed.   Fed. Reg.
                                         Reg. 7316-01
                                               7316-01 ((Feb.
                                                         Feb. 7, 2020). Then, based
       upon   the Secretary's
                  Secretary's    determination    of apublic health emergency,
                                                     a               emergency, on April
                                                                                      April
                   the Secretary issued an Emergency Use Authorization
       24, 2020, the                                              Authorization ("Mask
                                                                                 ("Mask
       EUA") clarifying that facemasks, including cloth face coverings, are
       "authorized for use by the general public to cover their noses and mouths,
       in accordance with CDC recommendations." See FOOD AND DRUG
       in
       ADMINISTRATION,
       ADMINISTRATION, (April   (April 24, 2021), available at:
       https://www.fda.gov/media/137121/download. The Mask EUA does not
       include any provision regarding informed consent. See generally id.
       (Emphasis
       (Emphasis added).
                     added)

                                                18
Lloyd, 570
Lloyd, 570 F.
           F. Supp.
              Supp. 3d at 1174.
                    3d at 1174. Given
                                Given the
                                      the absence
                                          absence of any provision
                                                  of any provision regarding
                                                                   regarding informed
                                                                             informed

               apparent that the Secretary
consent, it is apparent                                                   apprisal of the
                                 Secretary felt, as does this court, that appnisal

much argued
     argued risks and benefits of masks was not
                                            not "practicable"
                                                "practicable" in the literally
                                                                     literally hundreds

of tthousands
of            of every
    housands of  every day
                       day distributions
                           distributions of
                                         of masks
                                            masks in
                                                  in supermarkets, stores, hospitals
                                                     supermarkets, stores,           and
                                                                           hospitals and

schools.
schools.

       In Lloyd,
       In Lloyd, with citations to significant
                      citations to significant precedent,
                                               precedent, it was held that
                                                             was held that there
                                                                           there is
                                                                                 is no
                                                                                    no private
                                                                                       private

cause of
cause of action for an
         action for an alleged
                       alleged violation
                               violation of the FDCA
                                         of the FDCA or EUA promulgated
                                                     Or EUA promulgated thereunder.
                                                                        thereunder.

Accord: Bush
Accord: Bush v,
             v. fantasia,
                Fantasia, 2022
                          2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
                               U.S. Dist  LEXIS 163696, 2022 WL
                                                163696, 2022 WL 4134501 ( D. Mass.
                                                                4134501(D.   Mass.

2022).
2022). Thus, Defendants in the present
                               present case cannot convolute the issues by asserting
                                                                        by asserting

a
a claim of a
  claim of aright
             right to
                   to be
                      be mask
                         mask free
                              free based
                                   based upon aprivate
                                         upon a         assertion of
                                                private assertion of a
                                                                     a violation of the
                                                                       violation of the

                            Llovd, it was held that a
FDCA or an EUA. Further, in Lloyd,                  amask mandate presents
                                                                  presents no

                process or equal
substantive due process    equal protection
                                 protection Constitutional violation
                                                           violation.

       In addition
       In          to the
          addition to the above,
                          above, the court in
                                 the court in Lloyd
                                              Lloyd held
                                                    held that amask
                                                         that a      mandate by
                                                                mask mandate by a
                                                                                aschool
                                                                                  school

district is rationally
            rationally related to a legitimate governmental
                                  a legitimate governmental interest because it is consistent

with the CDC's Guidance, pointing           regardless of two divergent
                         pointing out that, regardless        divergent scientific

schools of tthought,
            hought,"...
                     "... the School Board's Mask Mandate is consistent with guidance
                                                                             guidance

from the CDC."
from the CDC." LI0yd,
               Lloyd. 570 F. Supp.
                      570 F. Supp. 3d
                                   3d at 1184. The
                                      at 1184. The Lloyd
                                                   Lloyd court
                                                         court elaborated:
                                                               elaborated:

      Although  Plaintiffs have
      Although Plaintiffs   have raised  valid points
                                  raised valid points about
                                                        about the
                                                              the efficacy
                                                                   efficacy of masks,
                                                                            of masks,
      the Court cannot find that Defendants are irrational for following
      the Court cannot   find  that Defendants   are  irrational for following the
                                                                                the
      recommendations of
      recommendations      of the  CDC which,
                              the CDC   which, as   the Court
                                                as the   Court has
                                                                has noted,
                                                                     noted, are
                                                                             are
      formulated based
      formulated  based upon
                           upon aagreat   deal of
                                    great deal of scientific
                                                  scientific research
                                                             research.

Lloyd, 570
Lloyd, 570 F.
           F. Supp.
              Supp. 3d
                    3d at
                       at 1185. As such,
                          1185. As such, itit was held that
                                              was held that aa ""mask
                                                                 mask mandate"
                                                                      mandate" does
                                                                               does not
                                                                                    not

           any violation of a
constitute any              asubstantive due process    equal protection
                                             process or equal protection right
                                                                         right under the

Constitution. See also:
Constitution. See                    Guilfoyle v.
                  also: Bush, supra; Guilfoyle v. Beutner, 2021 U.S.
                                                  Beutner, 2021 U.S. Dist.
                                                                     Dist. LEXIS
                                                                           LEXIS

                                              19
                                              19
195396
195396 (C.D. Cal. 2021);
       (C.D. Cal, 2021); Dolen-Cartwright
                         Dolen-Cartwright v. Alexander, 2022
                                          v, Alexander, 2022 U.S.
                                                             U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50053
                                                                              50053

      La. 2022). The CDC Guidance in the present case
(M.D. La.                                        case ((Ex.
                                                        Ex. C-2) was confirmed by
                                                                               by

Superintendent Becker to have been a
                                   a basis for Southern's Mask Mandate promulgated
                                                                       promulgated

                       in Lloyd,
on August 29, 2021. As in Llovd, and as articulated above, as long as there was some
                                                                                some

rational basis for the Southern School Board policy, we, in the judiciary, are not to act

as aa "super
      super school board," second guessing board policy and substituting our own.

       For the foregoing reasons, the FDCA and the EUA statute contained within it are

not relevant or assertable by the Defendants in the present
                                                    present case, each of whom are

trying to use tthe
               he EUA statute as aadefense to the crime of defiant trespass.
                                                                   trespass. It was

proper to prevent the jury from being confused by arguments thereunder.

6. The sixth assignment of error is the same as the fifth and the discussion on
6,
the fifth assignment of error is hereby incorporated by
                                                     by reference.

                                          BY TH    COURT:

                                                                                      P.J.
                                                       E GARY . NOR ON, P.J.

                                           20