Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Bender](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10809935/com-v-riggle-s/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Riggle, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 579 WDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Bender

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [John T. Bender](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8224/john-t-bender/)

J-A29045-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
STANLEY E. RIGGLE :
:
Appellant : No. 579 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-03-SA-0000035-2024

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: March 17, 2026

Appellant, Stanley E. Riggle, appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed following his bench trial conviction for summary harassment. We

affirm.

The Commonwealth filed two criminal complaints against Appellant,

both of which related to allegations he harassed his neighbor, Robert Hahn.

A magistrate district judge found Appellant guilty at both dockets, and

Appellant thereafter filed timely notices of appeal to the Court of Common

Pleas of Armstrong County. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 460. The trial court held

separate de novo trials, Pa.R.Crim.P. 462, and the Commonwealth presented

the following testimony regarding the summary harassment charge at issue

herein.

Hahn testified that approximately two to three days before the incident,

he had recorded “a video of two people riding their horses on [Appellant’s]
J-A29045-25

property next to [his] fence line.” N.T., 4/28/25, at 25. He did not know

these individuals and stated they appeared to be “[y]oung adults, maybe high

school” age. Id. at 26. On October 2, 2024, Hahn and his wife went on a

walk and saw Appellant and his wife approach on a four-wheeler. Id. at 12.

The Hahns continued their walk, and saw Appellant stop the vehicle. Id. At

that time, “[t]hey … started to yell at us. They said they had something to

say.” Id. at 13. The Riggles “were upset” about Hahn’s video, and Appellant

“started calling [him] a pedophile.” Id. Hahn and his wife “continued on

[their] walk” instead of engaging. Id. However, the Riggles began following

the Hahns on the four-wheeler, with Appellant driving parallel to their path.

Id. at 14, 22. Appellant “continued saying disparaging remarks,” such as

calling Hahn “a pedophile.” Id. at 14. Appellant then “sa[id] very clearly[,]

‘Wait until your neighbors find out you’re a pedophile. We have ways of

dealing with you.’” Id. at 21.

The trial court found Appellant guilty of harassment for the above

conduct. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.1 Appellant complied with

---

1 Appellant filed the notice of appeal at docket CP-03-SA-0000034-2024,
which corresponds to the other complaint and for which the trial court orally
pronounced Appellant not guilty. However, the trial court mistakenly
transposed the docket numbers on its written orders. See Order, 6/28/25, at
1 (clarifying that “the case numbers on the two orders were inadvertently
switched”). The June 28 order corrected the mistake, and therefore the guilty
verdict is now properly docketed at CP-03-SA-0000035-2024.

Because Appellant filed his notice of appeal in a timely fashion, we have
amended the caption to reflect the correct docket number. See Pa.R.A.P.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

-2-
J-A29045-25

the order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the trial court issued its

Rule 1925(a) opinion. Appellant raises four issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding that
   [Appellant] had an intent to annoy, harass, or alarm … Hahn
   pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709(3)?

2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding that
   [Appellant] acted with no legitimate purpose pursuant to 18 Pa.
   C.S. § 2709(3)?

3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding that
   [Appellant] engaged in a course of conduct pursuant to 18 Pa.
   C.S. § 2709(3)?

4. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding that
   [Appellant] was not validly exercising his First Amendment right
   to free speech?

Appellant’s Brief at 1.

Appellant’s first three issues pertain to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Our standard of review is well-settled.

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

---

902(a) (requiring a notice of appeal to be filed “in each docket in which the
order has been entered”); id. (b) (stating that, except for failures to file a
notice of appeal in a timely manner, the “failure of a party to comply with the
requirements stated in subdivision (a) does not affect the validity of the
appeal, but the appeal is subject to such action as the appellate court deems
appropriate”). We deem it appropriate to amend the caption to correspond to
the correct docket as reflected in the trial court’s June 28, 2025 order.

-3-
J-A29045-25

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 finder 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. Bernarsky, 348 A.3d 304, 319–20 (Pa. Super. 2025)

(quoting Commonwealth v. Furness, 153 A.3d 397, 401 (Pa. Super. 2016)).

Because sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law, our standard

of review is de novo. Id.

“A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass,

annoy or alarm another, the person ... engages in a course of conduct or

repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. §

2709(a)(3). Each of Appellant’s first three issues addresses a separate

component of this statute.

In his first claim, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to

present sufficient evidence that he acted with the requisite intent. Appellant

alleges that the Commonwealth’s evidence “proved, through the testimony of

… Hahn, that [Appellant] was upset about the video recording of his minor

granddaughter. Additionally, the Commonwealth established that [Appellant]

had the intent to speak with … Hahn about the video recording.” Appellant’s

Brief at 10. Appellant argues that he “sought to address a perceived wrong,

and … Hahn refused to address the matter, leading [Appellant] to express his

frustration in name calling.” Id. at 11.

-4-
J-A29045-25

“This [s]ection requires the fact finder to infer a specific intent, and it

specifies the conduct must be of a non-legitimate nature—conduct which is

not constitutionally protected.” Commonwealth v. Battaglia, 725 A.2d 192

(Pa. Super. 1999). We agree that the context is relevant to assessing specific

intent. For example, in Battaglia, a police officer observed Battaglia blowing

leaves onto a street and instructed Battaglia to clean them up. Id. at 193.

“Eventually, [Battaglia] stated he was going to ‘fucking sue the police’ for

bothering him[.]” Id. at 193. The officer arrested Battaglia and, at the police

station, Battaglia “touched [the officer’s] hand while grabbing a pen from the

officer[.]” Id. Finally, Battaglia allegedly “did not follow” directions. Id. at

194.

The citation charging Battaglia with harassment listed all three acts as

independently justifying harassment. We determined that the comment was

insufficient “because the evidence did not prove [the] remark was made with

a specific intent to harass. In its obvious context, the remark was a response

to perceived harassment; whether a justifiable perception or not, the context

was responsive, not provocative.” Id. at 194. Similarly, grabbing the pen

was insufficient. “The officer may have been annoyed in fact, but there is no

evidence, in the context of the situation or otherwise, to show appellant's

purpose was to cause annoyance.” Id. at 195.2 Finally, “not following a

direction … is not harassment.” Id.

---

2 The statute in effect at that time required proof that the acts actually caused

annoyance or alarm.

-5-
J-A29045-25

We accept that the initial encounter between Appellant and Hahn would

not constitute harassment. Hahn testified that the incident began when the

Riggles “turned off their four-wheeler, [and] started to yell at us. They said

they had something to say.” N.T., 4/28/25, at 13. By all accounts, the initial

context involved a neighborly dispute, and Appellant was free to criticize Hahn

and attempt to strike up a conversation to address his complaints.

However, the context of the encounter almost immediately changed, as

Appellant accused Hahn of pedophilia. Moreover, the Hahns had no obligation

to participate or respond to Appellant’s comments.3 At that juncture, Hahn

indicated a desire to be left alone, and he and his wife began walking in the

opposite direction. Appellant chose to “turn the four-wheeler around, [and]

began driving … parallel” to the Hahns. Id. at 21. Appellant continued to

berate Hahn, closing with the comment, “Wait until your neighbors find out

you’re a pedophile. We have ways of dealing with you.” Id.

We conclude that the trial court, sitting as fact-finder, could rationally

infer that Appellant demonstrated a specific intent to harass by continuing to

follow, insult, and obliquely threaten Hahn. “An intent to harass may be

inferred from the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Lutes,

793 A.2d 949, 961 (Pa. Super.2002). Appellant’s decision to pester Hahn

---

3 In Appellant’s second issue he concedes that “Hahn refused to engage in a

conversation” about the recordings. Appellant’s Brief at 12.

-6-
J-A29045-25

after he declined to discuss their dispute constituted sufficient evidence of a

specific intent to harass. Appellant’s first issue therefore merits no relief.

Appellant’s second claim avers that the Commonwealth failed to show

that he “acted with no legitimate purpose.” See Appellant’s Brief at 11-12.

This argument is essentially a variation of the first claim, as he asserts his

conduct was done for the “legitimate purpose of discussing ... Hahn’s video

recording of [Appellant’s] minor granddaughter. As a grandfather, [Appellant]

has an interest in the wellbeing of his granddaughter.”

In Commonwealth v. Duda, 831 A.2d 728 (Pa. Super. 2003), Duda

was convicted of the same harassment subsection at issue here. Duda had

recently separated from his wife and, per an agreement, took the couple’s

children to his wife’s home for a visit. Id. at 730. Upon arrival, Duda refused

to leave the children, as he believed that his wife’s boyfriend was present. Id.

Duda then called his wife and “yelled and screamed obscenities at her. He

also threatened to kill her, and vowed that she would never see her children

again. After Mrs. Duda hung up the phone, [Duda] called again making the

same threats.” Id.

Duda argued that “the calls served the legitimate purpose of discussing

visitation rights with Mrs. Duda.” Id. at 731. We disposed of this argument

in short order: “However, given [Duda]’s use of obscenities and threats during

the calls, one could not conclude that [Duda] was serving a legitimate purpose

by making the calls.” Id.

-7-
J-A29045-25

As in Duda, the manner in which Appellant chose to deliver his message

circumstantially establishes that there was no legitimate purpose served by

his communications and conduct. Appellant argues that he “has an interest

in the wellbeing of his granddaughter,” but he fails to explain how repeated

accusations of pedophilia and threats to involve third parties advances a good

faith conversation regarding the video.4 We find that the Commonwealth

presented sufficient evidence for the fact-finder to conclude Appellant’s

conduct was intended to harass and did not serve a legitimate purpose.

Appellant’s third claim alleges that the Commonwealth failed to prove a

“course of conduct,” which the statute defines as “[a] pattern of actions

composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short,

evidencing a continuity of conduct.” Appellant’s Brief at 12 (quoting 18

Pa.C.S. § 2709(f)). As is evident from this text, “a single act will not constitute

a course of conduct under the definition of harassment.” Lutes, 793 A.2d at

961 (citation omitted).

Appellant submits this incident does not involve a course of conduct

because “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that [Appellant] ended the

interaction with … Hahn and returned for a second interaction, or that the

interaction was prolonged long enough to constitute a course of conduct.”

Appellant’s Brief at 13-14.

---

4 Hahn testified that he did not know the individuals in the video. Appellant
did not testify, and his argument therefore assumes facts not in evidence.

-8-
J-A29045-25

It is true that Appellant did not end the interaction; however, Hahn did.

Under Appellant’s logic, a “course of conduct” cannot be established unless

the aggressor voluntarily ends the encounter and then reengages. However,

the analysis includes whether the victim tried to avoid the aggressor. If so,

repeated attempts to reengage the victim qualifies as a course of conduct.

See Lutes, 793 A.2d at 961 (finding evidence sufficient to support a course

of conduct where Lutes approached a government employee and blocked his

path, insulted him, and threatened to punch the employee in the mouth

despite fact he repeatedly tried to avoid confrontation). Because the evidence

established multiple instances of harassing conduct, the Commonwealth

presented sufficient evidence to meet this statutory requirement.

Appellant’s final claim is that his conviction cannot stand under the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as he “validly exercised his First

Amendment rights.” Appellant’s Brief at 15.5

Appellant appears to make an as-applied challenge, which addresses

whether “application of the statute under the facts and circumstances of [the]

case violates [Appellant’s] First Amendment rights.” Commonwealth v.

Papp, 305 A.3d 62, 77 (Pa. Super. 2023). Appellant cites individual

---

5 The Commonwealth argues that this claim is waived, stating that Appellant

failed to “make a First Amendment argument at the trial court level[.]”
Commonwealth’s Brief at 8. Appellant did not argue the claim at trial, but did
raise the allegation in his Rule 1925 statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement, 6/20/25, ¶ 4. We accept, without deciding, that a First
Amendment as-applied challenge need not be raised at trial.

-9-
J-A29045-25

components of his comments, arguing that each fails to meet any exception

to the First Amendment’s bar against penalizing speech.

“[T]he government generally lacks the authority to restrict expression

based on its message, topic, ideas, or content.” Commonwealth v. Knox,

190 A.3d 1146, 1154 (Pa. 2018). There are exceptions to this principle. See

generally Interest of J.J.M., 265 A.3d 246, 254 (Pa. 2021) (discussing the

various exceptions, including, as relevant here, “fighting words,” “true

threats,” and defamation). Appellant argues that his speech did not satisfy

the criteria for these exceptions.

Had the Commonwealth punished Appellant on the theory he issued a

“true threat” by referencing third parties to “deal with” Hahn, or that an

accusation of pedophilia constitutes “fighting words” or was defamatory, we

would have to analyze whether the speech itself could be punished. However,

Appellant’s framework is mistaken, as the Commonwealth punished Appellant

for his harassing conduct, not the content of his speech. This point is

demonstrated by our analysis in Papp, which involved an as-applied challenge

to a conviction under a separate section of the harassment statute.6 Papp, a

veterinarian, was prosecuted for sending multiple Facebook messages to one

of her clients, accusing the client of animal abuse. Papp, 305 A.3d at 67-68.

The messages persisted despite the victim’s requests for Papp to end all

---

6 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(7) (“A person commits the crime of harassment when,
with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person . . . . communicates
repeatedly in a manner other than specified in paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).”).

• 10 - J-A29045-25

communications. Id. at 67. Papp argued that her harassment conviction was

based on the content of the speech, because the fact-finder knew what Papp

said to the victim. Id. at 77. Papp further argued that the Commonwealth

relied on the alleged “outlandish” nature of the messages to establish

harassment, thereby basing the conviction on the content of the speech. Id.

We disagreed.

[H]ere, the content of [Papp’s] messages was relevant for two
purposes: (1) to determine if the messages were intended as
legitimate communications; and (2) to determine if [Papp’s] intent
was to harass, alarm, or annoy [the v]ictim. The statute itself,
however, is content-neutral. [Papp] was not guilty of harassment
simply because [the v]ictim disapproved of her messages or did
not agree with her allegations of abuse. She was convicted
because the jury found she repeatedly sent messages to [the
v]ictim, for which she had no legitimate purpose, and did so with
the intent to harass him.

Papp, 305 A.3d at 78.

This analysis readily extends to Section 2709(a)(3), which likewise does

not address the content of the speech. Compare 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4)

(criminalizing communication of “lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene

words, language, drawings or caricatures”). Because Appellant’s conviction

was predicated on the specific intent to harass Hahn by repeatedly engaging

in acts which served no legitimate purpose, his conviction was based on his

harassing conduct and not the content of his speech.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

• 11 - J-A29045-25

DATE: 03/17/2026

• 12 -