Commonwealth v. Walsh
36 A.3d 613
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Jerome Walsh was convicted of indirect criminal contempt for violating a Temporary PFA order.
- The victim, S.S., is the daughter of Walsh’s partner and resided with Walsh and her family since childhood.
- S.S. moved out in 2010 after alleging sexual abuse by Walsh; a Temporary PFA was issued on her behalf in Jan 2011.
- In Feb 2011 Walsh allegedly threatened S.S via a third party, leading to the contempt charge and a Final PFA order.
- Walsh challenged SS’s standing as a protected person under the PFA Act and several evidentiary rulings at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.S. qualifies as a protected person under the PFA Act | Walsh argues no biological/guardian link and no shared residence. | Commonwealth contends affinity-based relation via long-term relationship suffices. | S.S. protected under PFA Act due to affinity relationship. |
| Whether Walsh violated the PFA order by threatening via a third party | Threats to S.S. conveyed through Craft violated the order. | No direct contact; statements to a third party should not trigger contempt. | Evidence shows sufficient specificity; third-party communication violated the order. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excusing Craft's phone records | Subpoena would have yielded exculpatory evidence; confrontation right violated. | Subpoena was untimely; defense could have subpoenaed or sought a continuance. | No abuse; late service and alternative means justify non-enforcement. |
| Whether exclusion of witnesses violated Walsh’s confrontation rights | Additional witnesses would rebut the sole accuser. | Testimony was cumulative; court properly limited witnesses. | No reversible error; discretion to limit cumulative testimony affirmed. |
| Whether the verdict is weight of the evidence (and waiver) | Weight claim merits reversal. | Waived for failure to raise timely; merits not shown even if addressed. | Weight claim waived; alternatively, record supports the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viruet v. Cancel, 727 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PFA objective is protection and removal of abuser)
- Commonwealth v. Snell, 737 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PFA Act protects family/household members)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (elements of indirect criminal contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 865 A.2d 869 (Pa. Super. 2004) (subpoena enforcement standard; abuse of discretion)
- Diamond v. Diamond, 715 A.2d 1190 (Pa. Super. 1998) (weight of evidence/appealability of contempt verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 548 Pa. 65, 694 A.2d 1086 (Pa. 1997) (evidentiary rulings; discretion of trial court)
- Moore, 373 Pa. Super. 603, 542 A.2d 106 (Pa. Super. 1988) (cumulative testimony; admissibility standards)
- Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. 2007) (reviewing legal conclusions in PFA context)