When attempting to obtain an Order for Protection from Abuse (PFA) a history of abuse is relevant to the trial Court and is potentially admissible. In Wippel v. Wippel, 25 Phila. 587, 587, 1992 Phila. Cty. Rptr. LEXIS 135, 1992 WL 1071456, the trial Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of certain prior incidents or of the existence of the two previous Orders demonstrating abuse, because they were not unduly prejudicial and were relevant to the issue of intent. This concept is counter to the typical evidentiary admissibility of prior bad acts in Court. In most situations this sort of evidence is inadmissible. However, in the case of proving abuse, fear of abuse and harm when attempting to obtain a PFA, this evidence is in some cases admissible. While the Court did not expressly indicate this was a reason for their determination – a victim’s fear of harm and abuse is a state of mind which must be “reasonable.” Past occasions of physical or verbal abuse are potentially evidence of a victim’s reasonableness in proving that they felt threatened with harm. If beaten or abused in the past, a victim can logically expect that such behavior would have a higher propensity to reoccur in the future.
Prior bad acts typically cannot be admitted proving the likelihood of a negative action – in this case violence and verbal abuse. Prior bad acts also cannot be used as circumstantial evidence of conduct. The bottom line is that the perpetrator of the abuse cannot have his or her past behavior used against him or her to prove a current abusive action. However, the Wippel Court noted that such evidence can be used under other circumstances.
In Wipple, Supra. the victim presented two prior Court Orders demonstrating past incidents of proven abuse. These Orders were admitted showing the victim’s state of mind. Thus, such evidence went to the reasonableness standard to meet the burden of proving reasonable fear of harm and abuse. The appellate Court found the admission of these orders to be not prejudicial enough to overturn the trial Court’s Decision and noted that the Orders were clearly relevant. The trial Court felt that the Orders helped demonstrate the perpetrator’s intent to threaten the victim.
Where intent is at issue and the prior activity is similar in nature, evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is admissible. See Commonwealth v. Eddowes, 397 Pa.Super. 551, 580 A.2d 769 (1990); Commonwealth v. Bond, 261 Pa.Super. 311, 396 A.2d 414 (1978). The perpetrator in this case indicated that he did not have the adequate intent to threaten the victim and thus this evidence as to intent became relevant and admissible.
The takeaway here is that a pattern of abusive behavior can be admissible in current litigation and the trial Court in PFA situations is liable to admit at least documentary evidence of such prior bad acts to prove current intent and the reasonableness of the victim’s fear of abuse.