Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2091 Civil VALERIE LYNN BEASTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. GREGORY A. EBERSOLE NO. 2005 - 2091 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., February , 2006 After a hearing on September 19, 2005 we found that the defendant had violated a Protection from Abuse order entered on May 5,2005. Because of the lengthy history behind this case, we ordered a sentencing report to include a psychological evaluation. On October 25,2005 the defendant was sentenced to a term of3 to 6 months in the Cumberland County Prison. He has filed this timely appeal in which he alleges that (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding of contempt; 1 (2) we erred in refusing to allow him to cross exam the victim regarding "prior false accusations she had made,,2 and (3) the Protection from Abuse Act (23 Pa. C.S.A. S 6101 et seq) is unconstitutional. We note that the defendant never raised the constitutionality of the Protection from Abuse Act prior to including the issue in his "Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal". Since we did not have the opportunity to rule on that issue, we are not now in a position to address it in this opinion. 3 We will address the remaining issues. 1 See "Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", p. 1. 2 See "Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal", p. 3. 3 The purpose of a 1925 opinion is for us to provide "a brief statement, in the form of an opinion, of the reasons for the order, or the rulings" challenged on appeal. See Rule 1925(a). NO. 2005 - 2091 CIVIL TERM Sufficiency of the Evidence. In order to support a finding of indirect criminal contempt for violating a Protection from Abuse order, the following four elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the order must be definite, clear, specific and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited; (2) the contemnor must have had notice of the specific order or decree, (3) the act constituting the violation must have been volitional, and (4) the contemnor must have acted with wrongful intent. Diamond v. Diamond, 715 A.2d 1190, 1196 (Pa. Super 1998). We were satisfied that each had been proven in the instant case. On May 5, 2005, we entered a final Order of Court which provided, inter alia, that "(d)efendant is prohibited from having ANY CONTACT with plaintiff. . . at any location. . ." (emphasis in original).4 It went on to put defendant on notice that "VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN YOUR ARREST ON THE CHARGE OF INDIRECT CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF UP TO $1000 AND/OR A JAIL SENTENCE OF UP TO SIX MONTHS." (emphasis in original). The defendant signed the very last page of the order consenting to its entry. Thus, the first two elements were satisfied. Based upon the testimony of the plaintiff Valerie Beaston, as well as the exhibits presented by the Commonwealth, we were satisfied that the following facts had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. On September 2, 2005 Ms. Beaston was fueling her car at a local Sheetz convenience store. 5 She saw the defendant's Jeep pull into the 4 See Final Order of Court dated May 5, 2005. Commonwealth Exhibit # 1. 5 See Transcript of Proceedings, p. 5. 2 NO. 2005 - 2091 CIVIL TERM side parking 10t.6 When she walked into the store to get some food and pay for her gas, the defendant moved his vehicle to the pump right next to hers.7 The defendant then entered the store wearing a sweatshirt sporting the victim's picture and the phrase "Valerie Beaston, lying skank."s As the plaintiff was leaving the store, the defendant bumped into her and said "Hi, bitch.,,9 Those actions amounted to a clear violation of our order. Furthermore, we were satisfied that defendant's conduct was "volitional" and that he acted with "wrongful intent." See Diamond, supra.10 Limitation of Defendant's Cross Examination of Plaintiff. The defendant's cross examination of the plaintiff can be found on pages 22 through 63 of the 67 page Transcript of Proceedings. A review of the cross examination shows that we allowed great leeway to the defendant in his questioning of the plaintiff, including questions regarding her prior false accusations. We did attempt to focus his questioning to the relevant issues before us. We made it clear that we were not prepared to be a pawn in his larger agenda of proving that his prior incarceration in a federal penitentiary resulted from the plaintiff s false accusations in that matter. The following exchange, which occurred after the defendant had asked numerous questions of questionable relevance, illustrates the point: THE COURT: MR. EBERSOLE: THE COURT: I've heard enough about that. All right. Okay. Next question. Again, Mr. Ebersole, we 6 See Transcript of Proceedings, p. 6. 7 See Transcript of Proceedings, p. 6. S See Transcript of Proceedings, p. 7. 9 See Transcript of Proceedings, p. 7. 10 After leaving the Sheetz, the plaintiff testified that the defendant followed her and forced her vehicle off the road. However, we must candidly admit that defendant's cross examination on that issue was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he did, in fact, willfully follow the plaintiff after she left the Sheetz parking lot. Therefore, our finding of contempt was not based upon this portion of the incident. 3 NO. 2005 - 2091 CIVIL TERM MR. EBERSOLE: THE COURT: MR. EBERSOLE: THE COURT: MR. EBERSOLE: THE COURT: MR. EBERSOLE: (emphasis added). do this dance all of the time. Focus on the night in question. Yes, Your Honor. Focus on what is on the tape. Focus on the allegations on the night in question, please. That's what is relevant today. Your Honor, in the last hearing that we had, when I was pushing for her testimony when I caught her in various lies, you cut me off, assuring me, in your own words that you get it. I honestly believe that you are one of the few people in this process so far that really does get it. I believe that you can tell a liar from a person telling the truth, and I believe you get that. That's my job. Mr. Ebersole, next question, please. Next question. Let's focus on what happened that night. I'm trying to preserve testimony. That's my main objective. Regardless of what happens to me today, the big issue here, to have the happy ending, is to have her prosecuted for her crime. So my real objective is to preserve any testimony I can of her lying under oath. Well, we're not going there. You can ask her questions about what occurred on the night in question. All right. 11 Rather than focusing on the night in question, the defendant insisted on pursuing his larger agenda. His obsession with the "big picture" is both tragic and dangerous. It is tragic because he is a retired Navy veteran who has served his country ably and honorably. It is dangerous because it has become an obsession. We limited his questions only where we felt it necessary to take the focus off the big picture and zoom in on the events giving rise to the alleged violation of our order. 11 See Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 28 - 30. 4 NO. 2005 - 2091 CIVIL TERM DATE Christylee Peck, Esquire For the Commonwealth Gregory Ebersole Defendant, Pro Se Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For the Public Defender :sld Edward E. Guido, 1. 5