Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10802487/com-v-mohn-j/about:blank#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 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Mohn, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1868 EDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Lazarus

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.3K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Anne E. Lazarus](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8236/anne-e-lazarus/)

J-S04008-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JUSTIN MOHN :
:
Appellant : No. 1868 EDA 2025

    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 11, 2025
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
                  No(s): CP-09-CR-0004256-2024

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED MARCH 2, 2026

   Justin Mohn appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions of one count

each of first-degree murder,1 second-degree murder,2 firearms not to be

carried without a license,3 criminal use of a communication facility,4

---

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a).

2 Id. at § 2502(b).

3 Id. at § 6106(a)(1).

4 Id. at § 7512(a).
J-S04008-26

possession of a weapon,5 terroristic threats,6 abuse of a corpse,7 defiant

trespass,8 and two counts each of terrorism9 and possession of instrument of

crime.10 After careful review, we conclude that Mohn has waived his claims

and we affirm.

   In light of our disposition, we provide only a brief summary of the

facts.11 On January 30, 2024, Mohn shot his father, Michael Mohn, in the head

in the bathroom of their home located at 145 Upper Orchard Drive in Bucks

County. After murdering his father, Mohn decapitated Michael’s corpse. Mohn

then filmed and posted a YouTube video with Michael’s head. Shortly

thereafter, Mohn broke into Fort Indiantown Gap with the intent to take control

of the National Guard stationed there. Mohn was arrested and charged with

the above-mentioned offenses.12

---

5 Id. at § 907(b).

6 Id. at § 2706(a)(1).

7 Id. at § 5510.

8 Id. at § 3503(b)(1)(iii).

9 Id. at §§ 2717(a)(2), (3).

10 Id. at § 907(a).

11 We observe that almost all of the facts in this case were admitted via
stipulation between the parties. The trial court provides a more thorough
recitation of the facts in this case. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/25, at 1-22.

12During the investigation, the Commonwealth discovered multiple letters,
online posts, and a USB drive that all contained varying forms of Mohn’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                       -2-

J-S04008-26

   On July 11, 2025, Mohn proceeded to a non-jury trial and the trial court

convicted him of the above-mentioned offenses. Mohn waived his right to a

pre-sentence investigation report and proceeded immediately to sentencing.

The trial court sentenced Mohn to an aggregate term of incarceration of life

without the possibility of parole.13

   Mohn filed a timely post-sentence motion in which he, inter alia,14 made

a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon a challenge to the weight of

the evidence. The trial court denied Mohn’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

   Mohn filed a timely notice of appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Mohn now

raises the following claim on appeal:

   1. Did the trial court commit an error of law by denying [Mohn]’s
   motion for judgment of acquittal in this matter because the
   conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence? To
   wit:

      a. The Commonwealth failed to present evidence such that
      a reasonable fact-finder could determine that [] Mohn was
      guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

displeasure with, or outright hatred of, the federal government. Mohn’s USB,
which was on his person when he was arrested, included a list of then-current
and former federal employees he wanted to murder. See id. at 12, 14-19
(detailing letters, USB contents, social media postings).

13The trial court imposed all of Mohn’s sentences concurrently to his first-
degree murder sentence.

14 Mohn also requested that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and

requested the preparation of transcripts in anticipation of appeal. See Trial
Court Opinion, 9/11/25, at 24 (summarizing Mohn’s post-sentence motion).

                                       -3-

J-S04008-26

     b. [Mohn] produced evidence and argument that the killing
     in this case was justified and therefore lawful under the
     circumstances. Pursuant to this evidence and argument, no
     reasonable fact-finder could have determined that [] Mohn
     was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brief for Appellant, at 7 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

  Mohn purports to challenge the weight of evidence. See id. at 7, 13-

1. However, throughout his brief, he consistently and continuously conflates

his weight challenge with sufficiency challenges. See Commonwealth v.

Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751-52 (Pa. 2000) (explaining differences between

sufficiency and weight challenges). Indeed, in the argument section of his

brief, Mohn titles the only analysis as “Sufficiency of the Evidence,” in which

he relies upon his own testimony and other defense evidence. See Brief for

Appellant, at 13-20. Further, Mohn does not include any analysis for his

weight claim and, instead, addresses the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s

evidence. See id. Nevertheless, Mohn requests a new trial, which is not the

proper remedy for a sufficiency challenge. See id. at 13-20. Therefore, we

conclude that Mohn has conflated sufficiency and weight in violation of our

case law and, thus, his claims are waived. See Widmer, supra; see also

Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 416 (Pa. Super. 2019) (appellant

waived challenges where appellant’s brief conflated weight and sufficiency

                                 -4-

J-S04008-26

claims and did not otherwise develop weight claim). Accordingly, Mohn’s

claims are waived.15

   Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Neuman, J., Joins this Memorandum.

Stabile, J., Concurs in the Result.

Date: 3/2/2026

---

15 Furthermore, we are aware that Mohn has not properly preserved a
sufficiency challenge in his Rule 1925(b) statement, in which he did not specify
which offenses and elements of those offenses he was contesting and, instead,
as highlighted supra, challenged the weight of the evidence. See Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 7/25/25, at 1 (raising weight
claim). Thus, to the extent that Mohn intended to raise a sufficiency claim, it
would be waived on this basis as well.

                                       -5-