178 A.3d 889
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Mother filed a civil Protection from Intimidation (PFI) petition on behalf of her minor daughter after repeated hostile conduct by neighbor/appellant; the trial court entered a final PFI on August 24, 2016 (expires Aug. 23, 2019).
- Alleged conduct included offensive Facebook posts calling the child a "whore," threatening comments about the family, running minors off the road with a vehicle, slurs during a property-line dispute, in-person confrontations at the community pool, and a loud remark in the Dollar General where appellant worked referencing the PFI.
- Appellant had prior criminal harassment proceedings and a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(3) upheld on appeal in the county courts.
- Trial court found multiple instances of intimidation and concluded, based on past incidents and close proximity of residences, that the victim was at continued risk of harm by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Appellant appealed, raising two issues: (1) insufficient evidence of "intimidation" as defined by the Act, and (2) lack of statutory authority to order a 50-foot separation and alleged unconstitutional burden on appellant’s property use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established "intimidation" under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act | Mother (on behalf of victim): asserted victim was subject to intimidation and proved continued risk of harm by preponderance through multiple incidents and proximity | Appellant: Act requires proof of criminal harassment elements (intent to harass/annoy/alarm); Mother failed to prove criminal intent/elements | Held: Act does not require proof of criminal elements; plaintiff need only assert intimidation and prove continued risk of harm by preponderance; trial court’s factual finding affirmed |
| Whether court exceeded authority by ordering appellant to stay 50 feet away and whether that order violated appellant’s property rights as-applied | Mother: 50-foot proximity restriction is appropriate relief to protect victim under §62A07 (court may order appropriate relief) | Appellant: No statutory authority for 50-foot rule; as-applied violation of property rights because it can restrict use of appellant’s own property | Held: §62A07 authorizes appropriate protective relief; 50-foot requirement is within court’s authority and limited-duration (≤36 months); as-applied constitutional challenge waived for failure to develop argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 121 A.3d 964 (Pa. 2015) (statutory construction principles; ascertain legislative intent)
- Chanceford Aviation v. Chanceford Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 923 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 2007) (read all sections of a statute together to determine intent)
- Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Twp., 32 A.3d 587 (Pa. 2011) (statutes in pari materia should be construed together)
- Beaver Valley Alloy Foundry Co. v. Therma-Fab, Inc., 814 A.2d 217 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (failure to develop legal argument results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges)