Com. v. Welty, S., 1402 MDA 2024

Stephanie Marie Welty was subject to a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order following an assault on her estranged husband, Lee Martin Welty.
The PFA order, entered April 24, 2024, incorporated a custody order limiting communication between Welty and her husband to text messages and only about the well-being of their shared teenage son.
Between June 20 and July 19, 2024, Welty sent numerous text messages to her husband, which authorities alleged violated the PFA’s communication limitations.
Welty admitted to sending the text messages, claiming they pertained to the child's well-being.
The trial court found Welty guilty of indirect criminal contempt (ICC) and sentenced her to six months' probation.
Welty appealed, arguing insufficient clarity in the PFA order, insufficient evidence, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Welty's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Clarity of "well-being" in PFA order	PFA order was too vague on "well-being," allowing almost any communication	Order was clear; communications were only limited to specific topics	PFA order was clear and unambiguous
Sufficiency of evidence for ICC	Evidence insufficient to prove violation due to broad reading of "well-being"	Sufficient evidence that Welty’s messages exceeded allowed topics	Sufficient evidence supported conviction
Weight of the evidence	Verdict was against the weight of evidence	Trial court properly found facts and assessed credibility	Claim waived and meritless

Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sets out sufficiency of evidence standards and elements for ICC)
Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 2005) (explains ICC requirements under PFA orders)
Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2003) (outlines the four required elements for ICC conviction)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (weight of the evidence standard)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (waiver of weight claims for failure to raise below)