record reveals the following. Appellant was in his yard when he shouted the obscene remarks to Battistini, who was in her yard at the time with her boyfriend and several other people. N.T. Trial, 6/20/14, at 13-16, 21. A five or six foot high fence separated the two properties. Id. at 14. The record does not reflect that anyone other than Battistini heard Appellant’s remarks, nor does the record reflect that Appellant’s remarks could have reached anyone not present in the yard of Battistini or Appellant. Since the both the speaker and recipient of the offensive remarks were present in respective private yards, we believe the evidence is insufficient to establish that Appellant acted with the intent to cause public annoyance, inconvenience or alarm. Cf. Young, 535 A.2d at 1142-43 (<HOLDING>). We cannot conclude Appel lant acted with the
holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding the evidence supported the inference that the victim was not released in a safe place where the victim overpowered the defendants and effected his own escape holding a dormitory restroom that served fifty female students and their guests was a public place despite the presence of only the perpetrators and the victim at the time of the offense holding that although the investigation of the traffic offense that served as the basis for the stop was complete when the officer issued the citation the officers continued detention of the appellant thereafter for a canine search was lawful because during the investigation of the traffic offense the officer had developed a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed a drugrelated offense