S.D. v. D.D.
1347 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Daughter (21, Bucknell student) filed a PFA petition against her mother (California resident) after an incident on March 28, 2016 where Daughter testified Mother chased her on campus, followed her into a building, grabbed and pushed her, and caused injury to her forearm; campus police were contacted.
- Temporary PFA entered; final hearing was continued twice at Mother’s requests; Mother sought to testify telephonically the day before the July 20, 2016 hearing, which the trial court denied.
- At the July 20 hearing Daughter testified about the March incident, prior emotional/physical incidents, and that Mother had threatened friends to obtain Daughter’s phone number; Mother’s counsel sought to introduce expert testimony by phone and various background evidence/texts, which the court excluded as irrelevant.
- The trial court found Daughter credible and entered a final PFA order prohibiting contact and ordering firearms relinquishment for the statutory maximum three years (to July 19, 2019).
- Mother appealed, challenging denial of telephonic testimony, sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of certain testimony/evidence, and the three-year term including the weapons relinquishment.
Issues
| Issue | Daughter's Argument | Mother (Appellant)'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother should have been allowed to testify telephonically | No direct argument; hearing proceeded with in-person testimony by Daughter | Telephonic testimony should have been permitted for good cause (medical issues, travel cost); denial violated due process | Denial was not an abuse of discretion: delays, late request, court concern about observing witness, and continuance option justified refusal |
| Whether evidence supported entry of PFA (abuse and reasonable fear) | Daughter: testimony established assault, stalking, and reasonable fear; prior abuse history supported findings | Mother: incidents did not show objective reasonable fear or sufficient physical abuse; no medical proof of injuries | Evidence (Daughter’s credible testimony) was sufficient to prove abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. §6102(a)(1) and (5); trial court’s credibility finding upheld |
| Whether trial court erred in excluding expert testimony and other evidence (background/texts) | Not applicable; prosecution relied on Daughter’s testimony | Expert opining Mother not dangerous and background/text messages were relevant to motive and reasonableness of actions/fear | Court properly excluded expert as irrelevant to whether Mother committed the acts alleged; background/texts also not sufficiently relevant to the March 28 incident — no abuse of discretion |
| Whether three-year duration and weapons relinquishment were appropriate remedies | Sought full protection; Daughter did not request firearms relinquishment and does not oppose removal of that restriction | Three-year maximum and firearms surrender were excessive given record; no evidence weapons were used or threatened | Three-year term upheld as within court discretion; weapons relinquishment reversed because record lacked evidence of weapons used or threatened and Daughter did not request it |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykai v. Young, 83 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PFA legal conclusions and abuse of discretion)
- Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2008) (purpose of PFA Act is prevention of physical and sexual abuse)
- Lanza v. Simconis, 914 A.2d 902 (Pa. Super. 2006) (due process requires opportunity to present witnesses and testify)
- Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2008) (credibility is for trial court; appellate sufficiency review standard)
- Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 1999) (view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner on sufficiency review)
- Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court discretion in selecting remedies under PFA Act)