HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0857 CRIMINALCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ROBERT L. BEAR NO. 02-0857 CRIMINAL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., September 17, 2002.
IN this summary offense case, Defendant, appearing in propria persona, has
appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from a judgment of sentence for summary
trespass.~ The citation arose out of an incident in which Defendant, after having been
warned by letter not to do so, entered the property of Ashcombe Vegetable Farm in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and disturbed its employees.2 At the time, Ashcombe
was operated by one Glenn Gross, a Reformed Mennonite and brother-in-law of
Defendant, who, according to Defendant, had helped to bring about the estrangement of
Defendant's wife approximately thirty years ago.
At his sentencing, Defendant conceded that he engaged in this offense, as well as
prior offenses against the same victims, for the purpose of "being arrested and then
forcing the people whom [he had] grievances with to come into court so that [he could]
cross-examine them.''4 Defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and to
undergo imprisonment in a county correctional facility for a period of not less than forty-
five days nor more than ninety days. The court noted that "[t]his sentence [was] imposed
because prior periods of probation and shorter periods of imprisonment for similar
~ Def.'s Notice of Appeal, filed Aug. 8, 2002.
2 See, e.g., N.T. 16, Trial, June 25, 2002 (hereinafter N.T. ~.
3 N.T. 10-11, 20.
4 N.T. 14, Sentencing Hr'g, July 30, 2002; see Commonwealth's Ex. 2, Sentencing Hr'g,
July 30, 2002; see also N.T. 42.
conduct have not been effective, and any lesser sentence would depreciate the seriousness
of the offense in view of the background of the case.''5
The basis for the appeal is expressed in a six-page, single-spaced document
submitted by Defendant in response to a court order directing that he file a statement of
matters complained of on appeal. The document begins with the following assertions:
Here it is, that is, as concise as possible and do justice to all potential
future victims of Mennonite marriage and family murdering madness
terrorism in "the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:10) and
sanctioned as "fully warranted -- love and concern" by the Cumberland
County Court in the name of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ever
since June 23, 1976.
Furthermore, fair play demands that I sufficiently explain
Cumberland County Court "evil" for you to not "send forth a stinking
savour" to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania if you are % prudent man.''6
The document proceeds to discuss a 1973 civil case in which Defendant apparently sued
the Reformed Mennonite Church and Mr. Gross to enjoin the practice of "shunning,"
which Defendant felt had caused the estrangement of his wife, Gale Gross, the sister of
Mr. Gross. In the course of this document, Defendant makes various assertions regarding
the erroneous decision in the case, the bias of the courts, his wife's lack of loyalty, Mr.
Gross and "his 'evil men and seducers' terrorists," and other wrongs committed against
Defendant by a variety of individuals, including, inter alia, Justice J. Michael Eakin of
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, retired President Judge Harold E. Sheely of this court,
Judge Edgar B. Bayley of this court, and Chief Deputy District Attorney Jaime M.
Keating of Cumberland County.7
5 Order of Ct., July 30, 2002. Defendant's prior criminal record included convictions for
false imprisonment, in 1987, simple assault, in 1987, trespass, in 1996 and 1998,
harassment, in 1997, and disorderly conduct, in 1998 and 2000. Ex. 2, Sentencing Hr'g,
July 30, 2002. Similar charges are currently pending against Defendant in other cases.
See N.T. 3-6.
6 Def.' s Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Aug. 29, 2002.
7Id
2
All of the above-named individuals, as well as several others, none of whom had
any connection with the events that gave rise to the charge currently at issue, were the
objects of subpoenas ad testificandum procured by Defendant. Prior to trial and in
response to motions filed on behalf of those individuals, the court quashed the
subpoenas.8
Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal will be construed as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the granting of the motions to quash
subpoenas. This opinion in support of the judgment of sentence is written pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The relevant facts9 of this case are basically undisputed and may be summarized
as follows:
On several separate occasions prior to August 2001, Defendant, who resides at 201
Potato Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, had entered the property of
Ashcombe Vegetable Farm, located at 906 Grantham Road, Mechanicsburg, Monroe
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. l0 During these occasions, Defendant acted
in an aggressive and confrontational manner, which induced employees of Ashcombe to
leave their work stations and effected a disruption in business. ~
On August 13, 2001, in response to these occurrences, a certified letter was sent
on behalf of Ashcombe to Defendant.~2 The letter stated as follows:
8 E.g., Order of Ct., July 25, 2002 (quashing subpoena served upon Justice J. Michael
Eakin of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court).
9 As may be inferred from Defendant's statement of maters complained of on appeal,
some of the evidence presented by Defendant at the summary trial was clearly irrelevant
and will not be discussed. See, e.g., N.T. 37-38.
l0 N.T. 15-16, 29.
~ N.T. 16-17, 20-21.
~2 Commonwealth's Ex. 1, Trial, June 25, 2002 (hereinafter Commonwealth's Ex. ~.
3
Dear Mr. Bear:
On behalf of all Ashcombe Farm and Greenhouse Associates, this certified
letter is an official notification of the following:
As a result of your recent conduct, including your recent appearances at the
business and your distribution of written materials which suggests that you
will conduct yourself in a manner which may disrupt the business and
potentially put others in physical danger, you are hereby notified that you
are not permitted on the property used as Ashcombes in Monroe Township,
Cumberland County.
Under no circumstances are you licensed or privileged to be on such
properties owned or used by Ashcombe. Should you ignore this notice,
your conduct will be reported to the appropriate authorities for possible
action. ~ 3
On August 15, 2001, Defendant signed a receipt acknowledging that the letter was
delivered to him.~4
At approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 19, 2001, at which time Ashcombe was
open to the public, Defendant again entered the property. In response, employees, as they
had done on previous occasions, left their work stations because they were "quite afraid
of [Defendant].''~5 Lester Shearer, a manager of Ashcombe, who had been alerted to
Defendant's presence by other employees, called police to ask for assistance, approached
Defendant, and asked him to leave. Mr. Shearer described Defendant's response as
follows:
As he talks about his being removed from the [Reformed Mennonite
Church], it angers him, and it seemed as the more he talked about his being
excommunicated, the angrier he got. And in that anger, he explained to me
that.., he could bring a machine gun with an extra large clip and that he
could cut my boss[, Mr. Gross,] in half with it.~6
~3id'
~4 Id.; N.T. 41.
~5 N.T. 16.
16 N.T. 16-17, 20-22.
4
Defendant remained on the property for approximately thirty minutes. The police arrived
soon thereafter, at which time Mr. Shearer recounted what had happened.~7
The appearance of Defendant, and the statements he made while on the premises,
caused a disruption in business as employees left, and then returned, to their stations. For
a period of approximately three to four hours after Defendant's appearance, employees
discussed "how [much] they fear[ed]" Defendant.~8
Prior to this episode, Defendant informed members of the Pennsylvania State
Police that he was going to Ashcombe and requested that they arrest him. According to
Defendant, "what I wanted to do was, bring these things[, regarding Mr. Gross,] before
the Court and see.., if there's any honesty to this Court.''~9
Prior to trial, Defendant served subpoenas ad testificandum on several individuals
whom Defendant alleged committed various wrongs with respect to Defendant's
relationships with his former wife and with Mr. Gross. One such subpoena was served
upon Justice J. Michael Eakin of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The subpoena
provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. You are ordered by the court to come to Cumberland County Courtroom
#1 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. and
thereafter until called, to testify on behalf of how you, as then District
Attorney of Cumberland County, did willfully and knowingly aid and
abet on December 2, 1979, Gale Gross Bear in her court perjury crime
in her and your efforts to criminally have me found guilty. Also how
you knowingly are guilty of the crime of helping cover up my being lied
by the Cumberland County Court and State Police into the mental
hospital on December 5, 1977.
2. And bring with you the following: The canons of Pennsylvania judicial
conduct and any law of the United States that allows you to do as you
did in court on December 2, 1979, contrary to: "The law itself is on trial
~7 N.T. 20-21.
la N.T. 21.
19 N.T. 42-43.
5
quite as much as the cause which is to be decided," stated by United
States Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Stone in a 1941 Opinion.2°
Another subpoena issued on behalf of Defendant was served upon retired
President Judge Harold E. Sheely of this court. The subpoena provided, in pertinent part,
as follows:
1. You are ordered by the court to come to Cumberland County Courtroom
#1 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. and
thereafter until called, to testify on behalf of how you, as presiding
judge, did willfully and knowingly aid and abet on December 2, 1979,
Gale Gross Bear in her court perjury crime in her and your efforts to
criminally have me found guilty.
Also how you knowingly are guilty of their crime of helping cover
up how the Cumberland County Court and State Police at Carlisle lied
me into the mental hospital on December 5, 1977.
2. And bring with you the following: The canons of Pennsylvania judicial
conduct and any law of the United States that does not judge you guilty
of inciting Gale Gross Bear to commit her perjury crime right before
your knowing eyes and ears, B.C. Cicero, one of the two chief
magistrates of the Roman Empire stated, which is as true today as when
he stated it: "The greatest incitement to guilt is the hope of sinning with
impunity." You incited Gale Gross Bear to believe she could commit
her crime with impunity just as she saw the Cumberland County Court
and State Police at Carlisle lie a sane citizen into the mental hospital on
December 5, 1977 with impunity.2~
Other subpoenas were served upon Judge Edgar B. Bayley of this court, Chief
Deputy District Attorney Jaime M. Keating of Cumberland County, Frances L. Bear,
Phoebe Sheaffer Bear, Glenn M. Gross, Mary Ellen Gross, Maryl Leaman, Roy M.
Leaman, and David A. Ody, Esquire. These subpoenas were similar in content to the
subpoenas served upon Justice Eakin and President Judge Sheely, and all referred only to
20 Order of Ct., July 25, 2002 (quashing subpoena served upon Justice J. Michael Eakin
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court).
2~ Order of Ct., June 4, 2002 (quashing subpoena served upon retired President Judge
Harold E. Sheely of this court)
6
events surrounding Defendant's previous lawsuit and subsequent institutionalization,
which occurred many years ago.
Motions to quash were filed on behalf of the aforementioned individuals in which
each individual averred that he or she had no knowledge or information relating to the
events that gave rise to the current charge of trespass. Accordingly, the court quashed the
subpoenas based on the determination that the allegations in the subpoena were
immaterial to the present charge against Defendant and that the individuals had no
relevant information about which to testify.23
DISCUSSION
Sufficiency of the Evidence. In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence
presented at trial, the proper test is "whether, viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Commonwealth's favor, there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find
every element of the [crime] charged beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Jones, 449 Pa. Super. 58, 61, 672 A.2d 1353, 1354 (1996) (quoting Commonwealth v.
Carter, 329 Pa. Super. 490, 495-96, 478 A.2d 1286, 1288 (1984)). The trier of fact is
"free to believe all, part or none of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 764 A.2d
582, 585 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (quoting Commonwealth v. Griscavage, 512 Pa. 540, 543,
517 A.2d 1256, 1257 (1986)).
Section 3503 of the Crimes Code, which defines the offense of criminal trespass,
provides, in its entirety, as follows:
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged
to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building
or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or
occupied portion thereof.
~ E.g., Order of Ct., May 31, 2002 (quashing subpoena served upon Judge Edgar B.
Bayley of this court).
~3 E.g., id
7
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an
offense under subparagraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
~Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized
opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged
to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given
by:
(i) actual communication to the actor; or
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders; or
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the
owner of the premises or other authorized person. Otherwise it is a summary offense.
(b. 1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged
to do so, he enters or remains in any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense.
(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is not licensed or privileged
to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands when such lands
are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the
person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner manifestly designed to
exclude trespassers or to confine domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands and defies an
order not to enter or to leave that has been personally communicated to him by
the owner of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year
and a fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes a misdemeanor of the
second degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than
two years and a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "agricultural or other open
lands" shall mean any land on which agricultural activity or farming as defined in
section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any land populated
by forest trees of any size and capable of producing timber or other wood products or
any other land in an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June 30, 1981
(P.L. 128, No. 43), known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, or any area zoned
for agricultural use.
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a)
of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor
complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the
premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person
empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. § 3503 (2001) (footnote
omitted).
In the present case, the court was of the view that the evidence presented at trial
was clearly sufficient to support a finding of guilt. Defendant admitted that he had
entered the property of Ashcombe after he had been notified by management that he was
neither permitted nor privileged to do so and, further, that he had entered for the purposes
of creating a disturbance and provoking litigation. Defendant' s appearance at this time, as
it had done on previous occasions, caused a disruption in Ashcombe's business and
produced fear in employees on the premises. It is believed that this evidence was
sufficient to support the finding of guilt with respect to the charge of summary trespass.
Motions To Quash Subpoenas. Both the United States and Pennsylvania
Constitutions accord to the accused in "all criminal prosecutions" the right "to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." U.S. Const. amend. VI; Pa.
Const. art. 1, § 9. However, "[t]his constitutional right, though fundamental, is not...
absolute." Commonwealth v. Jackson, 457 Pa. 237, 243, 324 A.2d 350, 355 (1974).
Criminal defendants are not granted, by these provisions, the unfettered ability to call
"any and all possible witnesses." Commonwealth v. Thomas, 552 Pa. 621, 638 n.7, 717
A.2d 468, 476 n.7 (1998). Rather, defendants are guaranteed the right to subpoena only
those witnesses whose testimony will be both favorable to the defense and admissible
9
under the rules of evidence, dackson, 457 Pa. at 243-45, 324 A.2d at 354-56. In other
words, "the Constitution does not require that a defendant be given the right to secure the
attendance of witnesses [whom] he has no right to use." Id. at 243, 324 A.2d at 355.
Thus, the court may quash a subpoena if, in its discretion, it finds that the proffered
testimony would be irrelevant or otherwise barred under evidentiary rules. See Id. at 243-
45, 324 A.2d at 354-56; Commonwealth v. McKenzie, 399 Pa. Super. 22, 25-27, 581 A.2d
655, 657-58 (1990); Commonwealth v. Lahoud, 339 Pa. Super. 59, 64-67, 488 A.2d 307,
310-11 (1985).
In the present case, it is believed that the motions to quash were properly granted
because the subpoenas issued on behalf of Defendant sought information that was
irrelevant and inadmissible at trial. In describing the testimony that Defendant wished to
elicit, the subpoenas referred only to events from 1977 to 1979 and to information related
to Defendant's previous alleged offenses, lawsuit and institutionalization, rather than to
the acts that gave rise to the current charge. Further, in the motions to quash the
subpoenas, all individuals stated that they had no personal knowledge of the events that
gave rise to the current charge of trespass. Because the subpoenas sought irrelevant and
inadmissible testimony, and because the testimony would not have assisted Defendant in
defending against the current charge of trespass, it is believed that it was proper to grant
the motions to quash the subpoenas.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Jaime M. Keating, Esq.
Chief Deputy District Attorney
10
Robert L. Bear
201 Potato Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendant, Pro Se
11