late night music from fraternity house was unreasonably noisy where fraternity sound system could be heard in residential neighborhood a block away
How later courts described this case
- late night music from fraternity house was unreasonably noisy where fraternity sound system could be heard in residential neighborhood a block away
- a fraternity’s playing loud music at night, in a private dwelling house with the windows open, such that individuals in the neighborhood could hear it, was sufficient to prove disorderly conduct
- if appellant’s conduct “affects the neighborhood,” the Commonwealth has proven that the “public” was affected
- sound system noise from a frat house party lasted hours, continued past 11:00 p.m., and could be heard in the residential neighborhood a block away
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting:
I join the Majority’s disposition of Appellant’s first issue. However, I would not reach that issue insofar as I believe there lacked sufficient evidence to support a conviction for disorderly conduct. “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence presented and all reasonable inferences taken therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner. The test is whether the evidence, thus viewed, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229 (1984).
An essential element of disorderly conduct is that the defendant “[made] unreasonable noise.” The testimony at trial, at most, established that one resident of the neighborhood in which the fraternity house was situated called in a noise complaint. Instead of speaking directly with the complainant whose home was approximately one block away from the fraternity house, Officer Territo decided to listen to Appellant’s party from 50-60 yards away. From this closer vantage point, the officer made the decision that a disorderly conduct citation was appropriate. I cannot agree with the Majority’s conclusion that one unsubstantiat *186 ed noise complaint, and the subjective view of a police officer stationed very near to the house, manifests a showing of unreasonable noise.
Of greater importance is the fact that notably absent from the record is any testimony that would establish the necessary mens rea for disorderly conduct. There is no indication that the fraternity intended to cause any “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.” Likewise, nothing in the record indicates that Appellant “recklessly” achieved such a result. Recklessness under the statute denotes a conscious disregard of a substantial risk that public annoyance or alarm would result from certain conduct, or a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe under the circumstances. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 340 Pa.Super. 427, 434 , 490 A.2d 853, 857 (1985). Instantly, Officer Territo admitted at trial that it was a warm evening, the members of the fraternity moved the party outside, and listened to music through open windows. When they were directed to turn the music down, they promptly complied. On this meager evidence alone, I do not agree that Appellant’s conduct amounted to recklessness. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.