Opinion
J-S25012-18 No. 1077 WDA 2017
07-12-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ASHLEE DAWN DRUHOT Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-24-CR-0000136-2016 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order entered in the Elk County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of Appellee, Ashlee Dawn Druhot, for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the criminal complaint that charged Appellee with several offenses arising from the death of her minor child ("O.M."), for the Commonwealth's failure to present a prima facie case on all counts. We affirm.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d), the Commonwealth has certified in its notice of appeal that the trial court's order substantially handicapped or terminated the prosecution of the Commonwealth's case against Appellee. Accordingly, this appeal is properly before us for review.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Procedurally, we add that the Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2017. The court ordered the Commonwealth on July 26, 2017, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); the Commonwealth timely complied on August 11, 2017.
The Commonwealth raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY WEIGHING THE 2009 CONVICTION OF SCOTT MURPHY ASSAULTING [FATHER] AS BEING "TOO REMOTE IN TIME AND FAR TOO ATTENUATED CIRCUMSTANTIALLY" TO EVIDENCE A PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE BY SCOTT MURPHY, SAID EVIDENCE BEING ADMITTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH AT [THE] TIME OF [THE] PRELIMINARY HEARING[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING [APPELLEE]'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSING AS TO COUNT 1, INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 2503(A), MISDEMEANOR FIRST DEGREE, OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINS THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH IN SUPPORT OF SAID CRIMINAL OFFENSE[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING [APPELLEE]'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSING COUNT 2, ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 4304(A)(1), FELONY THIRD DEGREE, OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINS THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH IN SUPPORT OF SAID CRIMINAL OFFENSE[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING [APPELLEE]'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSING COUNT [4], ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 4304(A)(1), FELONY THIRD DEGREE, OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINS THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF SAID CRIMINAL OFFENSE[?](Commonwealth's Brief at 4-5).
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING [APPELLEE]'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSING COUNT [3], RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING ANOTHER PERSON, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 2705, MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE, OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINS THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF SAID CRIMINAL OFFENSE[?]
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING [APPELLEE]'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSING COUNT 5, RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING ANOTHER PERSON, 18 PA.C.S.A. § 2705, MISDEMEANOR SECOND DEGREE, OF THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINS THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF SAID CRIMINAL OFFENSE[?]
A pre-trial habeas decision is not subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Commonwealth v. Karetny , 583 Pa. 514, 880 A.2d 505 (2005). A pre-trial habeas decision on the Commonwealth's prima facie case for a charged crime is a question of law subject to plenary review. Commonwealth v. Dantzler , 135 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2016) (en banc) (citing Karetny , supra ).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Richard A. Masson, we conclude the Commonwealth's issues merit no relief. The trial court fully discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 26, 2017, at 1-10) (finding: (1-2) Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to establish prima facie case against Appellee for involuntary manslaughter; Commonwealth's evidence established on or about December 31, 2015, Appellee was aware Daniel J. Murphy ("Father") had delivered their two minor children ("Children") to apartment of Scott and Kristy Murphy, Children's paternal aunt and uncle; Appellee did not have input into Father's decision to move Children to home of uncle and aunt; Appellee did not reside in Elk County and was never present in Scott and Kristy Murphy's home; Father continuously assured Appellee he would bring Children back from Scott and Kristy Murphy's home; in attempt to show Appellee was aware of Scott Murphy's propensity for violence, Commonwealth presented written statement Appellee provided police in investigation of Scott Murphy's 2009 simple assault against Father; during 2009 incident, Scott Murphy was drunk and attacked his adult brother with knife; no children were present or harmed during 2009 incident; Scott Murphy's conviction for 2009 assault of Father is too remote in time and too attenuated to evidence propensity for violence; 2009 incident occurred seven years before death of O.M.; television news interview Appellee gave after death of O.M. did not establish Appellee knew or should have known of threatening conditions at Scott and Kristy Murphy's home; Appellee inquired and received several reports that Children were in good health while living with Scott and Kristy Murphy; statements Appellee made to television news reporter do not demonstrate any foreknowledge of substantial and unjustifiable risk to O.M. at home of Scott and Kristy Murphy; marginal concern Appellee expressed as to Scott and Kristy Murphy's lack of their own children did not show Appellee knew of Children's living conditions and circumstances; Commonwealth failed to present prima facie evidence Appellee consciously disregarded risk to Children; (3-4) Commonwealth failed to establish prima facie case for two counts of endangering welfare of children ("EWOC"); evidence did not show Appellee knew conditions at Scott and Kristy Murphy's home put Children in danger requiring reasonable person to intervene; Appellee received reports from Father that Children were in good health; Appellee also received reports from her mother and sister, and viewed photographs of Children on Facebook, which corroborated Father's reports; Appellee was unaware of any threatening conduct by Scott and Kristy Murphy that would require action to protect Children; (5-6) Commonwealth failed to establish prima facie case for two counts of reckless endangerment of another person ("REAP"); Commonwealth presented no evidence to show Appellee knew Children were at risk of death or great bodily harm while Children lived in home of Scott and Kristy Murphy). We agree. The record supports the trial court's decision, and we have no reason to disturb it. See Karetny , supra. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/12/2018
Image materials not available for display.