C.J.L. v. W.S.M., Sr. ( 2020 )

J-A16022-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
C.J.L. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
W.S.M., SR.
Appellant No. 1144 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered June 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No: 7207-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2020
Appellant, W.S.M., Sr., appeals from the June 13, 2019 protection from
abuse (“PFA”) order1 prohibiting contact with Appellee, C.J.L., his ex-wife of
thirty years, for three years. We affirm.
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion:
A PFA order was entered after testimony of record
established that the parties were divorced for two and a half (2.5)
years and [Appellee] was remarried, when [Appellant] sent a
series of text messages to [Appellee] and letters to [Appellee’s]
church, to [Appellee] and her new husband and her friend […]
regarding his feelings about [Appellee] and her actions during the
marriage and numerous biblical and scriptural references as to the
perceived actions. Testimony also established that [Appellee] was
fearful of [Appellant] based on current and repeated messages,
letters, and contact in that they were divorced for 2.5 years and
____________________________________________
1 The Protection from Abuse Act (the “Act”) is codified at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101
et. seq.
J-A16022-20
she was remarried, and the messages spoke of her prior
relationship with [Appellant]. [Appellee] also testified that while
the ongoing messages and letters were being written by
[Appellant], he followed her to work, causing her to be fearful for
her safety.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/30/19,a t 5-6.
Appellee filed her PFA petition on June 13, 2019. That same day, the
trial court conducted a hearing with both parties and counsel present. The
trial court entered the order on appeal at the conclusion of the hearing. The
trial court denied reconsideration on June 21, 2019, and Appellant filed this
timely appeal on July 11, 2019. Appellant presents two questions:
I. Whether the trial judge erred in granting Appellee’s
petition for protection from abuse where there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding of abuse as defined in the PFA Act?
II. Whether the trial judge committed an error of law or
abused its discretion when it relied on text messages and letters
which were not entered into evidence in entering an order on a
protection from abuse petition?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
We conduct our review according to the following standard:
In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial court's
legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion. The
PFA Act does not seek to determine criminal culpability. A
petitioner is not required to establish abuse occurred beyond a
reasonable doubt, but only to establish it by a preponderance of
the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence standard is
defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., [enough] to tip
a scale slightly.
When a claim is presented on appeal that the evidence was
not sufficient to support an order of protection from abuse, we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner
and granting her the benefit of all reasonable inferences,
determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial
-2-
J-A16022-20
court's conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence. This Court
defers to the credibility determinations of the trial court as to
witnesses who appeared before it.
E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509, 519 (Pa. Super. 2020).
The trial court entered the PFA pursuant to § 6102(a)(5), which defines
abuse as “[k]knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly
committing acts toward another person, including following the person,
without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in
reasonable fear of bodily injury.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a)(5). The trial court’s
objective is to determine whether the victim’s fear is reasonable. Raker v.
Raker, 847 A.2d 720, 725 (Pa. Super. 2004). The perpetrator’s intent “is of
no moment.” Id.Appellant claims the evidence in support of the PFA order was
insufficient because his messages were not expressly threatening and because
the record contains no evidence of past abusive conduct. Thus, Appellant
argues, Appellee could not have been in reasonable fear of bodily injury.
Appellant relies on D.H. v. B.O., 734 A.2d 409 (Pa. Super. 1999), in which
the defendant contacted his former lover thirteen times over the span of five
days, making apparent threats to the plaintiff’s boss and coworker. Id. at
410-11. This court vacated the PFA, noting that the defendant never
threatened the plaintiff (as opposed to his coworker), and that most of the
messages expressed no more that the defendant’s “chagrin over unrequited
love.” Id. at 411.
-3-
J-A16022-20
Appellant also cites Burke v. Bauman, 814 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2002),
in which this Court reversed an order dismissing a PFA petition. There, we
wrote that “the trial court articulated only one basis for its decision: namely,
an apparent belief that telephone calls can never form the basis for a PFA
order.” Id. at 209. This Court disagreed, concluding that, “[i]t is possible for
a person to be placed in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury based on
telephone calls, particularly when coupled with the alleged abuser’s past
history of violence.” Id. (citing D.H., 734 A.2d at 412).
Appellant would have us conclude from Burke and D.H. that telephone
communications support a PFA order if and only if they are accompanied by
past violence. Appellant argues that his persistent messages to Appellee were
not threatening, and that Appellee’s alleged fear of him, in the absence of any
past abuse, was unreasonable. We observe that Burke and D.H. hold that
reasonable fear can be based on persistent communications particularly
where there is a history of abuse. Neither case required evidence of past
abuse or held that communications alone can never form the basis for a PFA.
We further observe that the record before us reflects more than mere
communication. Appellee testified that on one occasion Appellant, from his
car, noticed Appellee travelling in the opposite direction in her car, and turned
and followed her to work.
We have reviewed the applicable law, the record, the parties’ briefs, and
the trial court opinion. Based on our observations above and the trial court’s
-4-
J-A16022-20
thorough and well-reasoned opinion of October 30, 2019, we conclude
Appellant’s first argument lacks merit.
In his second argument, Appellant claims the trial court erred in relying
upon evidence outside of the record. Appellant notes that Appellee did not
move into evidence the documentation of his many text messages, nor did
Appellee move into evidence Appellant’s letters. The record reflects that
Appellee prepared exhibits apparently documenting all of the communications
from Appellee that prompted her to file a PFA petition. Appellant objected to
their admission for lack of authenticity. N.T. Hearing, 6/13/19, at 6-7. The
hearing proceeded with both Appellant and Appellee reading portions of
Appellee’s communications into the record, with each party testifying as to
their perceived meaning. At the end of the hearing, Appellee’s counsel elected
not to move the exhibits into evidence. Id. at 44. In preparing its opinion,
the trial court relied upon and cited portions of the transcript where one of the
parties read a communication into the record. The trial court did not cite or
purport to rely on documents not admitted into evidence. Thus, there is no
support for Appellant’s argument that the trial court based its decision on
matters outside of the record. Appellant’s brief fails to develop any argument
challenging the trial court’s reliance on the parties’ testimony about the
subject communications. We therefore conclude Appellant’s second argument
lacks merit.
-5-
J-A16022-20
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order and direct that
a copy of the trial court’s October 30, 2019 opinion be filed along with this
memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/16/2020
-6-