The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the conviction of Colter Conway for making terroristic threats, a ruling that could influence future cases involving claims of self-defense. The decision, filed on October 23, 2026, comes after Conway appealed a jury's verdict that found him guilty of threatening violence against another individual during an altercation at a church.
Conway's case began with an incident on December 8, 2024, involving a confrontation with Joshua Fisher and his mother, Elsie, at a church. Following the altercation, which included physical and verbal exchanges, Conway called the police to report the incident. Officer Andrew Hurd, who responded to the call, later testified that Conway made several statements that were interpreted as threats, including remarks about using deadly force if necessary.
The altercation escalated when Conway sent a series of messages to Pastor Doug Conway, expressing his feelings of fear and making ominous statements regarding potential violence. These messages included phrases like "kill or be killed" and indicated that he would not hesitate to take violent action if he felt threatened again. The prosecution argued that these statements constituted terroristic threats under Pennsylvania law.
During the trial, the jury found Conway guilty of one count of terroristic threats and one count of harassment, although the harassment conviction was later vacated. Conway was sentenced to 90 days to 24 months of incarceration. He subsequently filed a post-sentence motion, claiming that the trial court erred by not allowing a self-defense jury instruction and asserting that the prosecution had violated his rights by failing to disclose evidence.
In its ruling, the court addressed several key issues raised by Conway, including the sufficiency of the evidence and the appropriateness of the jury instructions. The court noted that Conway's statements were made in a context that did not support a claim of self-defense. Judge Lazarus, writing for the court, stated, "There was no immediate necessity for [Conway] to protect himself or others at the time he made the threatening statements." This finding was crucial in affirming the conviction.
The court also found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction for terroristic threats. The judge emphasized that the Commonwealth did not need to prove that Conway had the ability to carry out the threats or that the intended victim believed he would do so. Instead, the focus was on the psychological impact of Conway's statements on those who received them.
"The statute seeks to prevent the psychological distress that follows from an invasion of another’s sense of personal security," the court noted. The messages Conway sent were deemed threatening enough to warrant concern from law enforcement and the individuals involved.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving claims of self-defense in Pennsylvania. It clarifies that a defendant's subjective fear does not necessarily justify threats made in a non-imminent context. The court's decision reinforces the legal standard that requires a clear and immediate threat to justify a self-defense claim.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Conway will seek further appeals in this case. The court's ruling does not preclude the possibility of additional legal challenges, especially regarding the alleged Brady violation related to the voicemail evidence. However, details about any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.