## Facts

- Michael Mochan repeatedly placed obscene and harassing telephone calls to Louise Zivkovich, a married woman, and members of her household in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
- Using a shared party line, he called at various times, including late hours, on a recurring basis over months.
- During the calls, he used vulgar and indecent language, insulted Zivkovich’s character, and made sexual propositions, including solicitations of adultery and suggestions of sodomy.
- The indictments alleged he intended to harass and embarrass the family and to damage Zivkovich’s reputation, characterizing the conduct as offensive to public decency and morals.
- Police and the telephone company traced the calls; Zivkovich identified Mochan by recognizing his voice.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated obscene, harassing telephone calls—though not prohibited by a specific statute—could be prosecuted as a common-law misdemeanor in Pennsylvania as conduct that openly outrages decency and injures public morals.
2. Whether the indictments were defective because the endorsement labeled the offense “Immoral Practices and Conduct,” rather than naming a statutory crime.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held that Pennsylvania still recognized prosecutable common-law crimes unless displaced by statute.
- Mochan’s conduct qualified as a common-law misdemeanor because it openly outraged decency and was injurious to public morals.
- The endorsement on the indictments did not control; the detailed factual allegations were sufficient to charge a common-law offense.

## Legal Principles

- In a jurisdiction recognizing common-law offenses, conduct that openly outrages decency and is injurious to public morals may be punished as a common-law misdemeanor without a specific statute.
- The absence of a prior reported case addressing the same modern means of misconduct does not bar prosecution if the conduct fits within an established common-law category of public wrongs.
- An indictment’s sufficiency turns on whether its factual allegations state a criminal offense; an imprecise endorsement or caption does not invalidate an otherwise adequate charging document.
- Criminal intent may be inferred from the nature, content, and repetition of the acts, and identification evidence (including tracing and voice recognition) may establish the actor’s responsibility.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a common-law misdemeanor conviction for repeated obscene telephone harassment, reasoning that Pennsylvania’s common law permitted punishment of conduct deemed a public wrong because it openly outraged decency and injured public morals, and that the indictments were adequate based on their factual averments.


Commonwealth v. Mochan, 177 Pa. Super. 454, 110 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1955)