Commonwealth v. Richard M. Bettis

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Richard M. Bettis’s convictions for resisting arrest, defiant trespass, disorderly conduct, and harassment, along with his one-year probationary sentence. The court held that school police officers had authority to arrest or detain Bettis and concluded that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court also rejected Bettis’s challenges concerning the legality of his presence at the school, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and the denial of his post-sentence motions.

Holdings

1. The school police officers acted within their authority because they had probable cause to arrest Bettis for the lesser-graded summary offense of defiant trespass and could detain him on school grounds while awaiting local law enforcement.
2. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Bettis knowingly remained on school property without a privilege after receiving direct notice that he had to leave.
3. The evidence was sufficient to prove resisting arrest because Bettis resisted a lawful arrest by wrestling with officers, attempting to reenter the school, flailing during handcuffing, and exposing the officers to a substantial risk of bodily injury or requiring substantial force to overcome his resistance.
4. The evidence was sufficient to prove disorderly conduct because Bettis's refusal to leave an operating school and physical struggle with school police constituted tumultuous behavior that at least recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm.
5. The evidence was sufficient to prove harassment because Bettis intentionally subjected the officers to physical contact while resisting their efforts to remove and arrest him, permitting an inference that he intended to harass, annoy, or alarm them.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Bettis's weight-of-the-evidence challenge or in denying his post-sentence motions for acquittal or a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether school police officers had legal authority to arrest or detain Bettis for conduct constituting summary defiant trespass notwithstanding the prosecutor's later charging the offense as a third-degree misdemeanor.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove defiant trespass.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove resisting arrest, including a lawful arrest and the required substantial risk of bodily injury or substantial force.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove disorderly conduct under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1).
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove harassment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(1).
6. Whether the guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
7. Whether the trial court erred in denying Bettis's post-sentence motions for acquittal or a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed