Com. v. Pezzetti-Funk, S.
Com. v. Pezzetti-Funk, S. No. 3369 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- On June 27, 2016, appellee Stephanie Pezzetti‑Funk allegedly approached witness Gina Fuscellaro in a courthouse hallway, raised a clenched fist, and said “you better drop the charges.”
- Fuscellaro had been scheduled to testify against appellee (and appellee’s sister) on an underlying simple‑assault matter and reported feeling scared and intimidated.
- Appellee was charged with witness intimidation, conspiracy, and making terroristic threats; at the August 15, 2016 preliminary hearing the municipal court dismissed all charges for lack of a prima facie case.
- The Commonwealth moved for permission to refile; the trial court denied refiling on October 5, 2016, and the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish a prima facie case of witness intimidation under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952(a)(3).
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to show probable cause that appellee attempted to intimidate the witness and the lower courts improperly made credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth established a prima facie case of witness intimidation at the preliminary hearing | Commonwealth: Fuscellaro’s testimony that appellee threatened her and raised a fist provided sufficient evidence and probable cause that appellee intimidated or attempted to intimidate to prevent testimony | Appellee: Municipal court found Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case (implicitly arguing testimony insufficient) | Reversed: Commonwealth met prima facie burden; charges may be refiled |
| Whether actual intimidation must be proved (mens rea/attempt) | Commonwealth: Proof of attempt or intent/knowledge suffices; need not show completed intimidation | Appellee: (Implicit) argued lack of sufficient evidence of intimidation or intent | Held: Law requires only attempt or intent/knowledge; actual intimidation not essential |
| Whether credibility determinations are appropriate at preliminary hearing | Commonwealth: Credibility is for factfinder at trial; preliminary hearing requires only probable cause | Appellee: Municipal court relied on credibility to dismiss | Held: Lower courts erred by making credibility findings at preliminary stage |
| Whether threat must be of extreme violence to constitute intimidation | Commonwealth: Threatening physical violence (fist/threat) can support intimidation | Appellee: Trial court suggested only extreme threats qualify | Held: Threat of extreme violence not required; totality of circumstances for factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (explains prima facie standard at preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Huggins, 836 A.2d 862 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prima facie case requires evidence of each material element and probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Collington, 615 A.2d 769 (Pa. Super. 1992) (actual intimidation not required; attempt suffices)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 152 A.3d 355 (Pa. Super. 2016) (credibility determinations are inappropriate at preliminary hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Doughty, 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015) (intimidation may be shown by conduct, posture, or offers; factfinder weighs totality of circumstances)