Com. v. Savage, T.
1707 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- On August 3, 2016 the Luzerne County Court issued a temporary PFA prohibiting Theodore Savage from contacting or entering the residence of S.S.; Savage was served that day. A final PFA issued August 9, 2016 for three years and reiterated the prohibitions.
- Commonwealth charged Savage with two counts of indirect criminal contempt: (1) entering S.S.’s residence on August 4, 2016 in violation of the temporary PFA; (2) contacting S.S. (or causing contact) on August 22, 2016 in violation of the final PFA via threatening phone/text communications.
- At the September 29, 2016 trial, S.S. testified Savage entered her home and fled, taking her vehicle; the Commonwealth also introduced text-message evidence. Savage’s girlfriend testified he was with her on August 4 and that she (the girlfriend) sent texts without his knowledge. Savage testified he never went to the residence after the PFA and did not authorize contact.
- The trial court convicted Savage of the first indirect criminal contempt count (entry into residence) but acquitted him on the contact/text count, and sentenced him to six months probation.
- Savage appealed pro se raising (1) insufficiency/due process (court allegedly used wrong burden of proof), (2) denial of a public trial (witness sequestered/others excluded), and (3) trial court’s failure to inform him of post-sentence motion/appeal rights (seeking leave to file nunc pro tunc).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Savage) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / burden of proof for indirect criminal contempt | Evidence (victim testimony, PFA, service) proved elements beyond reasonable doubt | Trial court misunderstood criminal nature and applied preponderance standard instead of beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held burden was correctly applied; record shows court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence sufficient to convict on entry charge |
| Public trial / exclusion of spectators | Sequestration of a testifying witness is proper and within trial court discretion; spectators exclusion claim was waived if not raised below | Savage contends girlfriend and others were denied courtroom access, violating public-trial right | Court held sequestration of girlfriend prior to testimony did not deny public trial; spectator complaints were waived or not shown to be prejudicial |
| Notice of post-sentence motion/appeal rights | Not required where defendant timely filed notice of appeal and suffered no prejudice | Savage argues lack of advisement prevented preservation and asks for nunc pro tunc post-sentence relief | Court found failure to advise occurred but was harmless because Savage filed a timely appeal and claims were preserved; no nunc pro tunc relief needed |
| Scope of evidence re: second charge (contact via third party) | Commonwealth presented texts and victim testimony linking threats to attempt to coerce withdrawal | Savage contends girlfriend sent texts without his knowledge; thus insufficient evidence of his wrongful intent | Court acquitted Savage on the second count at trial; record supports acquittal given competing testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review and credence given to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (elements required to prove indirect criminal contempt)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Yount, 314 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1974) (sequestration of witnesses lies largely within trial court discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 945 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 2008) (harmless-error analysis when defendant not prejudiced by procedural omissions)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (standards for allowing a criminal defendant to proceed pro se)