Bond, M. v. Price, C.
2481 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- On March 14, 2014, Crissie Price (respondent) went to her ex‑boyfriend Musaali Bond’s home with their 4‑year‑old daughter; an altercation occurred between Price and Bond’s fiancée, Marshene Robinson.
- During the incident a front‑door window at Bond’s house was broken (allegedly by a rock), an argument ensued, and Bond testified Price subsequently struck him with her minivan, causing swelling and bleeding to his left shin and a hospital visit the next day.
- Bond testified he was threatened during the confrontation; Price testified she did not strike Bond with the minivan and described being assaulted with a broom/shovel by Robinson.
- Police arrested Price at the scene; Price was later criminally tried and acquitted of related criminal charges.
- The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas entered a final Protection From Abuse (PFA) order against Price on July 16, 2015 (expired March 14, 2016). Price appealed pro se challenging counsel effectiveness and sufficiency of evidence.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding the trial court’s credibility determinations reasonable and that the record (testimony, photos, police report, medical records) supported abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bond) | Defendant's Argument (Price) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Price was denied effective assistance of counsel at the PFA hearing | Not applicable (Bond was petitioner) | Price argued trial counsel failed to present documentary evidence and impeaching questions, denying her Sixth Amendment right | No relief — there is no right to court‑appointed counsel in PFA proceedings; ineffective‑assistance claim fails |
| Whether the trial court erred in crediting Bond’s testimony over Price’s | Bond relied on his testimony, photos, police and medical records to prove abuse | Price argued Bond’s testimony was inconsistent and ambiguous, undermining credibility and sufficiency | Court affirmed — credibility determinations are for the factfinder; Bond believed; evidence sufficient by preponderance |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to establish "abuse" under the PFAA | Testimony and corroborating exhibits showed intentional injury and fear of imminent serious bodily injury | Price contended the evidence did not meet the preponderance standard | Held: Sufficient evidence existed (testimony, photos, police report, medical records) to support PFA order |
| Whether appeal was moot because the PFA expired | Bond (appellee) argued mootness | Price appealed despite expiration; appellee requested dismissal as moot | Court declined to dismiss as moot, noting public‑policy exception in PFA cases and reviewed merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Weir v. Weir, 631 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1992) (no statutory right to court‑appointed counsel in PFA proceedings)
- Varner v. Holley, 854 A.2d 520 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PFA is not the type of proceeding requiring appointment of counsel)
- Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535 (Pa. Super. 2005) (review whether record contains sufficient evidence to prove abuse by preponderance)
- Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2007) (petitioner’s testimony, if believed by the trial court, can be sufficient to prove abuse)
- Shandra v. Williams, 819 A.2d 87 (Pa. Super. 2003) (public‑policy exception to mootness in PFA appeals)