Com. v. Rhodes, L.
Com. v. Rhodes, L. No. 672 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Ling Fong Rhodes was subject to a final PFA order (entered Feb. 18, 2016) prohibiting any contact, direct or indirect, with her husband, Mr. R.
- On Feb. 29, 2016 two phone calls to the household of M.B. (Rhodes’s daughter, living with Mr. R) displayed as "out of area." M.B.’s 12‑year‑old daughter C.R. answered and identified the caller as her grandmother (Rhodes); a second call was not answered.
- Trooper Urban investigated, contacted the county jail (Luzerne County Correctional Facility, LCCF), and was told not all facility calls are recorded; he did not subpoena phone‑company records and did not confirm whether LCCF caller ID appears as "out of area."
- Rhodes testified she was incarcerated at LCCF at the time, denied making the calls, and said she had no funds to place calls from the facility.
- The trial court found C.R.’s voice identification credible and convicted Rhodes of indirect criminal contempt for violating the PFA; the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved Rhodes contacted protected persons in violation of PFA (identity of caller) | Commonwealth: voice ID by C.R. and M.B. established Rhodes was the caller and thus violated the PFA | Rhodes: she was incarcerated at LCCF, had no phone funds, caller ID was "out of area," and no phone records tie calls to her — identity not proven beyond reasonable doubt | Court: voice identification by C.R. (and M.B.) was credible; identity proven; conviction affirmed |
| Whether PFA order was sufficiently definite and provided notice | Commonwealth: final PFA clearly prohibited any direct or indirect contact, including by telephone | Rhodes did not dispute notice or clarity | Court: order language was sufficiently specific and Rhodes was presumed to understand it |
| Whether the conduct was volitional and wrongful | Commonwealth: making the calls constituted volitional contact prohibited by the PFA | Rhodes: argued inability to place calls from jail undermines volition/identity | Court: credited witness identification; volition and wrongful intent inferred from proof of call by Rhodes |
| Whether absence of phone records requires acquittal | Rhodes: lack of telephone-company or jail‑record proof creates reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: circumstantial and testimonial evidence (voice ID) can suffice | Court: testimonial voice ID alone can sustain conviction; no requirement for phone‑company records |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements of indirect criminal contempt and sufficiency standards)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 954 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2008) (a witness may identify a person by voice alone; weight for trier of fact)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 722 A.2d 718 (Pa. Super. 1999) (indirect criminal contempt defined for PFA violations)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (elements required to prove indirect criminal contempt)