These
cases concern two separate incidents, which gave rise to
separate criminal complaints, docket numbers, and
dispositions. We will refer to the case at
CP-02-CR-0006879-2018, No. 24 WDA 2022 as "the Office
Case" and the case at CP-02-CR-0014079-2018, No. 23 WDA
2022 as "the Church Case."
The trial court set forth the facts at the Office Case as
follows:
Some time prior to March 1, 2017, Attorney James Herb
represented Mr. Coniker. Mr. Coniker and Attorney Herb
eventually had a falling out, and Attorney Herb informed Mr
Coniker that he was not permitted to enter Attorney
Herb's offices and that if Mr. Coniker did so, Attorney
Herb would have him arrested. Knowing that he was not
permitted to enter Attorney Herb's offices, Mr. Coniker
called Attorney Herb's offices and started to record the
telephone conversation. The call was then disconnected, and
neither Attorney Herb, nor anyone from his office elected to
call back Mr. Coniker.
Accordingly, after being told he was not permitted to enter
Attorney Herb's offices and having also unsuccessfully
tried to speak to Attorney Herb and his office by telephone
Mr. Coniker, knowing he was not welcome, decided to try to
communicate again with Attorney Herb by entering Attorney
Herb's offices on March 1, 2017. Mr. Coniker made this
entrance immediately after leaving the local magisterial
district judge's offices, where he made threats regarding
a weapon because his case therein had been postponed. Despite
his incredible assertions to the contrary, Mr. Coniker's
intent when entering Attorney Herb's offices was to cause
disruption and to frighten, scare, and alarm its occupants
just like he had intended to and did moments before at the
magistrate's office.[1]
Mr. Coniker's conduct inside Attorney Herb's office
achieved Mr. Coniker's intent. He was threatening and
frightening to the office's occupants. Attorney
Herb's staff, including Janet Knochel, who encountered
Mr. Coniker in the offices, were, in fact, so concerned about
Mr. Coniker that they called the police and fled
the offices. Mr. Coniker was screaming [into a cell phone,
"I'm at Attorney Herb's office and I got a
gun."]
The impact on Attorney Herb's office was such that
following the incident with Mr. Coniker, the "format of
[the] office" changed. Attorney Herb explained:
Subsequent thereto … I put a metal door in at the top
of the ramp and bullet proof glass in to protect the front
office assistants. And so nobody can get into the interior
offices without us buzzing them in or letting them in. And
there's a speaker box on the bullet proof glass that
allows the front office assistant to speak and hear the
people who come in … from the outside. And the wall
goes up to the ceiling now, so that the front is secure. You
can't enter in, you can't get into the offices
without someone letting you in . . . .
Eventually, the police arrived at Attorney Herb's
offices. Notably, prior to being dispatched to Attorney
Herb's offices, the police had been forced to respond to
the local magistrate's office to deal with Mr.
Coniker's conduct there, where they took the magisterial
district judge and his staff into safety and placed the
courtroom in lockdown. Once at Attorney Herb's offices,
law enforcement caught up to Mr. Coniker and saw and heard
him screaming, yelling, and berating Attorney Herb. Mr.
Coniker was ultimately arrested.
Trial
Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 4-6 (record citations omitted).
Approximately
18 months after the events in the Office Case, Coniker was
involved in an incident at Assumption Church. The trial court
set forth the facts from the Church Case as follows:
Mr. Coniker has a turbulent relationship with Assumption
Church. Indeed, prior to September 20, 2018, the police had
been summoned to escort Mr. Coniker from the church's
property on multiple occasions.
Before September 20, 2018, Mr. Coniker had also been informed
by the church's Priest that he was not to videotape or
take pictures inside the church. Mr. Coniker also knew prior
to September 20, 2018, that he was not permitted to
"bring the [Holy Communion] host out of [the]
church" once he had received it. Mr. Coniker understood
that he was to consume the host
immediately if received in his mouth or within two steps if
received in his hand. Mr. Coniker was aware that if he did
not follow the foregoing practices regarding the host, his
disobedience would cause a disturbance at the church.
On [Thursday,] September 20, 2018, Mr. Coniker went to
Assumption Church for morning services. Knowing the
disturbance it would cause and that he had been forbidden
from doing so, Mr. Coniker nevertheless intended that morning
to take pictures and to record the goings on in the church.
He also, despite his incredible assertions to the contrary,
intended to violate the host-practices set forth above by
removing the host from the church so that he would have God
with him later in the day at a court proceeding in Ohio.
After giving Confession before morning services began, Mr.
Coniker took out his camera and started to take pictures and
videotape of the church. The Priest again told Mr. Coniker
that he was not permitted to do so and-given Mr.
Coniker's reaction and his history with the church-called
the police.
Mass then began, and Mr. Coniker refused to consume the host
after receiving it. That refusal caused the Eucharistic
Minister to tell Mr. Coniker that he was required to consume
the host. Mr. Coniker told the Eucharistic Minister that he
was "going to take th[e] host with [him] to court"
later that day.[] The Priest then confronted Mr. Coniker, and
Mr. Coniker testified that the following occurred:
[H]e stopped me. He says, You can't do that. I said, well
then, Father, you come to court-with me to court today. I
need a true father in my life. My dad was biologically dead
at that point and there's falsehoods-I need God the
Father. And so [H]e's in this host, so, I'm going to
bring God the Father with me in this host to be physically
with me. He said, you can't do that. I said-I knew I was
committing a spiritual act of disobedience. . . .
[H]e's telling me I can't do that. He has people
surround me. He says, don't let him leave the church.
Accordingly, Mr. Coniker knew he could not leave the church
with the host and had been repeatedly told the same, yet he
repeatedly refused to listen and repeatedly tried to take the
host out of the church without consuming it. The Priest,
along with
other parishioners, then attempted to prevent Mr. Coniker
from leaving with the host.
After receiving the report of a disturbance at Assumption
Church, law enforcement arrived on the scene. Police Chief
Matthew Sentner found the Priest and the entire congregation
surrounding Mr. Coniker, whose back was up against a wall as
he faced about a dozen or so people. After speaking with the
Priest, Chief Sentner proceeded to arrest Mr. Coniker for
theft of the host. During the arrest, Mr. Coniker was not
compliant and, instead, became aggressive with Chief Sentner,
who was required to wrestle Mr. Coniker to the ground.
[Officer James Dold responded to the church after Mr. Coniker
was handcuffed.]
Trial
Court Opinion, 3/9/22, at 7-10 (record citations omitted,
Chief Sentner's name corrected).
Police
charged Coniker in connection with both
incidents.[2] On August 18, 2021, the trial court heard
both cases in separate non-jury trials. In the Office Case,
the trial court found Coniker guilty of harassment of
Attorney Herb and of Ms. Knochel, disorderly conduct at the
magistrate's office and at Attorney Herb's office,
and defiant trespass. In the Church Case, the trial
court found Coniker guilty of harassment of Chief Sentner and
of Officer James Dold, as well as disorderly conduct.
The
trial court sentenced Coniker to consecutive 90-day periods
of probation for an aggregate term of 720 days of probation.
Coniker filed timely post-sentence motions, a premature
notice of appeal, and an amended post-sentence motion. The
trial court ultimately denied Coniker's post-sentence
motions, providing: "Mr. Coniker's sentences of
probation are terminated, and the Court closes interest in
the same." Order, 12/28/21, at 1. Coniker timely
appealed. Coniker and the trial court complied with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
This
Court consolidated Coniker's cases sua sponte.
Coniker raises the following challenges in his combined brief
for both cases, which we have reordered for ease of
disposition:
Did the Commonwealth provide sufficient evidence to support
Mr. Coniker's convictions? More specifically:
a. At [the Office Case], did the Commonwealth fail to produce
sufficient evidence to support the Harassment conviction in
that it failed to establish that (1) Mr. Coniker had the
intent to harass, annoy or alarm anyone, (2) … Mr
Coniker had no legitimate purpose to be at Attorney
Herb's office, and (3) … multiple acts supported
the "course of conduct" charge?
Further, did the Commonwealth present
...
