Background
J-A09033-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ANDRE LAMONT JOHNSON : : Appellant : No. 781 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 27, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0002403-2023 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: July 23, 2026 Andre Lamont Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for terroristic threats and evading arrest or detention on foot.1 Johnson challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his terroristic threats conviction. After careful review, we conclude Johnson’s sufficiency claims merit no relief, and, consequently, we affirm. The relevant facts, as gleaned from the trial testimony, are as follows. In February 2023, Johnson’s wife, Isha Staples (“Staples”), lived with her two ____________________________________________ 1 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2706(a)(1), 5104.2. Johnson was charged with several offenses in connection with the events discussed infra. Johnson was acquitted of some of the other charges, the Commonwealth withdrew some, and Johnson was convicted for harassment. These other offenses are not germane to the present appeal. J-A09033-26 children in a residence her mother owned. Johnson stored belongings there, but stayed over only periodically.
D.D. then saw Johnson enter the residence, after which she locked herself inside her bedroom and texted her brother. D.D. testified she was scared for her life, and her brother told her to call the police. See id.2 Sergeant Christopher Mourdant (“Sergeant Mourdant”) of the West Mifflin Borough Police Department responded to the call. D.D. ran towards the police vehicle, visibly shaken and distraught as she described what had happened. Staples arrived and informed Sergeant Mourdant that Johnson had a key but did not have permission to be at the house because they were divorcing. Sergeant Mourdant observed damage to the rear door and the blinds covering the closet window. Johnson later arrived at the scene and did not comply with police commands to place his hands on a vehicle. Instead, he ran toward the house, and police tased him. The Commonwealth charged him with various offenses arising from this incident, and Johnson elected a non-jury trial at which D.D. and Staples, among others, testified. ____________________________________________ 2 Staples got a call from her son, D.D.’s brother, saying that Johnson was inside of their home and had entered through a window. Staples told her son to call the police and drove home. See id. -3- J-A09033-26 At trial, Johnson testified in his own defense. He testified he was married to Staples and had lived in the residence for eight years. He explained he went there because he believed Staples would not be home and wanted to gather his things without seeing her.
The Court’s Holding
conclusion that the testimony established Johnson knew D.D. was home and communicated a threat to kill everyone—which includes D.D.—in the residence. D.D. testified, and it was uncontested, that it was common knowledge among the people living in the housing that she was always home. Further, Johnson entered the residence through a window near D.D.’s bedroom, and D.D. testified that the lights and television were on when Johnson entered. See id. at 15, 47-48; Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/25, at 11. D.D. was present in the residence and personally heard Johnson threaten to kill everyone inside. See N.T., 2/25-26/25, at 15, 47- 48. Accordingly, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that Johnson communicated a threat to D.D. Johnson next argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he acted with the intent to terrorize. Johnson maintains that he made the statements out of anger, outside the presence of -7- J-A09033-26 any victim, and without the means to carry out the threat. He further argues that he entered through the window merely to avoid confrontation and retrieve his belongings. The trial court concluded that the totality of the circumstances proved Johnson intended for whoever was in the residence to hear his threats because it strained credulity to believe he would yell threats into a house that he believed was unoccupied. The court reasoned that Johnson intended to make his presence “known in such a way that he would not be approached” as he gathered his belongings. Trial Court Opinion, 10/21/25, at 13. Following our review, we conclude the record supports the trial court’s reasoning. Johnson’s threat was not made during the earlier verbal altercation with Staples.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- conclusion that the testimony established Johnson knew D.D. was home and communicated a threat to kill everyone—which includes D.D.—in the residence.
- D.D. testified, and it was uncontested, that it was common knowledge among the people living in the housing that she was always home.
- Further, Johnson entered the residence through a window near D.D.’s bedroom, and D.D. testified that the lights and television were on when Johnson entered.
Why It Matters
Superior Court upholds a terroristic-threats conviction based on the surrounding circumstances Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.