from the Order Entered, August 29, 2017, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Civil Division at No(s):
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
matter, Casey Harriman appeals from an order entered after
his indirect contempt conviction for violating a Protection
From Abuse ("PFA") order. Because there is no
evidence Harriman acted with the requisite wrongful intent,
nor is there evidence Harriman had constructive possession of
a firearm, we reverse the conviction and vacate the judgment.
record reveals the following pertinent history: Recent times
have not been peaceful for Harriman and his extended family,
who live next door. One of those family members, Wade Shaner,
whose exact familial relationship is not discernable from the
record, obtained a temporary PFA order against Harriman. As a
result of this temporary order, Harriman relinquished his
firearms. In doing so, he signed a form certifying that he
did not "possess or have access to any firearms which
[he] owns, borrowed or otherwise have control of."
See Commonwealth's Exhibit 3. The trial court
entered a subsequent final PFA order pursuant to the consent
of Shaner and Harriman. The final order, dated May 31, 2016,
precluded Harriman from "possessing, transferring or
acquiring any firearms" for the duration of the two-year
in-fighting continued. In June 2017, deputies from the
Lycoming County Sheriff's Department sought to serve
Harriman with a new and separate PFA. On their way to
Harriman's property, they received a dispatch call from
their sergeant that a tip had just come in alleging Harriman
was still in possession of a firearm. The source of the tip
was not revealed either to the deputies, nor was it disclosed
in the record. The deputies called the Pennsylvania State
Police to assist, and Trooper Tyler Diggan was dispatched.
Law enforcement arrived at Harriman's home, but no one
answered the door. Still seeking to serve Harriman with the
PFA paperwork, Trooper Diggan noticed a "pole shed"
approximately two hundred feet from Harriman's
door. The pole shed was actually on the
neighboring property, which belonged to Harriman's
grandmother-in-law. Trooper Diggan stepped into the shed to
look for Harriman where he observed a .22 rifle hanging on
the wall at eye level. The gun, later determined to be
unloaded, was secured by one of the deputies, but no care was
taken to preserve the weapon for future fingerprint testing.
They could not determine who owned the rifle, which was
described to be weathered, nor how long it had been there.
point, Harriman came home and was taken into custody and
arraigned pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6113. Harriman told
law enforcement that the shed did not belong to him, but that
he has stored his property in it before. On August 25, 2017,
the trial court found Harriman guilty of indirect criminal
contempt of the PFA order "by having access" to the
rifle found in the pole shed. He was ordered to pay a $300
fine plus prosecution costs.
submits this appeal and this single issue, which we restate
Whether the Court of Common Pleas, in finding that [Harriman]
had access to a firearm while barred from possessing,
transferring or acquiring firearms under a valid [PFA] Order,
may convict [Harriman] of indirect criminal contempt without
explicitly finding that [Harriman] acted or failed to act
with wrongful intent.
Harriman's Brief, at 6.
reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a
conviction for indirect contempt, "we must determine
whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable
inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was
sufficient to enable the fact finder to conclude that the
Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Felder, 176 A.3d 331, 333-334 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Taylor, 137 A.3d 611, 614
(Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc) (citation and quotation
omitted). In applying the above test, "we may not weigh
the evidence and substitute our judgment for the
fact-finder." Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932
A.2d 108, 109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (citation and quotation
omitted). Finally, "the trier of fact while passing upon
the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence
produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the
evidence." Id. at 110.
finding of criminal contempt must be supported by the
following four elements:
1. The court's order or decree must be definite, clear,
specific and leave no doubt or uncertainty in the mind of the
person to whom it was ...