Court Opinion

ID: 9368271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 16:09:20.323264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.557919
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania               :
                                           :
              v.                           :      No. 1259 C.D. 2021
                                           :      Argued: November 15, 2022
Nicholas Serrbocco,                        :
                            Appellant      :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
              HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                           FILED:         February 3, 2023

              Nicholas Serrbocco appeals his summary conviction for harboring a
dangerous dog under Section 502-A(a)(1)(ii) of the Dog Law.1 At his trial de novo
before the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court), two
prosecution witnesses testified by Zoom. On appeal, Serrbocco argues that he was
denied his constitutional right to confront these two witnesses in violation of the

1
  Act of December 7, 1982, P.L. 784, as amended, 3 P.S. §459-502-A(a)(1)(ii). Section 502-A
was added by the Act of May 31, 1990, P.L. 213. It states, in relevant part, as follows:
        (a) Summary offense of harboring a dangerous dog.--Any person who has been
        attacked by one or more dogs, or anyone on behalf of the person, a person whose
        domestic animal, dog or cat has been killed or injured without provocation, the
        State dog warden or the local police officer may file a complaint before a
        magisterial district judge, charging the owner or keeper of a dog with harboring a
        dangerous dog. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be guilty of the summary
        offense of harboring a dangerous dog if the magisterial district judge finds beyond
        a reasonable doubt that the following elements of the offense have been proven:
               (1) The dog has done any of the following:
                                                    ****
                       (ii) Killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, dog or cat
                       without provocation while off the owner’s property.
3 P.S. §459-502-A(a)(1)(ii).
Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution2 and Article I, Section 9 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.3 For the reasons to follow, we affirm.
                Serrbocco is the owner of a pitbull, Cali, that attacked and inflicted a
serious injury on another dog. At the time of the attack on December 11, 2018, Cali
was unrestrained and not on Serrbocco’s property.
                On December 17, 2018, an animal control officer issued Serrbocco a
citation for harboring a dangerous dog under Section 502-A(a)(1)(ii) of the Dog
Law. On July 22, 2019, Serrbocco was found guilty in absentia before a Magisterial
District Judge and sentenced to pay $140.74 in fines, costs, and restitution.
                Thereafter, in late 2020, Serrbocco appealed his summary conviction
nunc pro tunc, for the stated reasons that he did not receive instructions on how to
appeal his summary conviction, the public defender’s office denied his application
for representation, and he was unable to appear at the hearing on July 22, 2019, due
to his job. See Renewed Motion for Summary Appeal nunc pro tunc at 4-5, ¶¶26-
27. On August 18, 2021, the trial court granted Serrbocco’s motion for an appeal
nunc pro tunc.
                The summary appeal hearing was held on September 22, 2021. Prior
to trial, the Commonwealth informed the trial court that two of its witnesses, Eve
Brewer and Angela Biesecker, who had been issued subpoenas, would not be able
to appear in person and would testify by Zoom. Serrbocco’s counsel objected,
stating that because the standard of proof was “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the
witnesses needed “to be here in person.” Notes of Testimony, 9/22/2021, at 3 (N.T.
__). Counsel explained that he had documents to show the witnesses and “[i]t just

2
  U.S. CONST. amend. VI. It states, in relevant part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” Id.
3
  PA. CONST. art. I, §9. It states, in part: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right . .
. to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]” Id.
                                                     2
doesn’t work” to hold up exhibits to a camera and “also to observe their demeanor
and what they say.” N.T. 3-4. The trial court overruled Serrbocco’s objection.
               The Commonwealth proceeded with its case, presenting both
documentary and testimonial evidence. The first witness, Brewer, testified by Zoom
and stated that on the evening of December 11, 2018, she returned home at
approximately 6:30 p.m. when she heard “a blood curdling scream along with what
was a growl, a growl and a scream from an animal.” N.T. 8. Realizing “that it was
a dog fight,” she ran outside and found Biesecker with her three dogs “tangled up”
with a pitbull. N.T. 8. One of Biesecker’s dogs, Little Bit, had been attacked in the
face by the pitbull, which Brewer kicked in order to release Little Bit. Brewer stated
that Biesecker’s three dogs were on leashes, and the pitbull was shaking Little Bit in
what she described as “a death shake.” N.T. 18.
               Biesecker, who also testified by Zoom, stated that on December 11,
2018, she was walking her three dogs on the sidewalk, when Serrbocco’s dog came
at her and her dogs, leaving her dog, Little Bit, “horrifically injured” on his nose and
mouth. N.T. 24. At the time of the attack, the pitbull was not leashed. Biesecker
stated that the pitbull grabbed Little Bit by his muzzle, nose and mouth. After the
attack, Little Bit was treated at the Malvern Veterinary Center for a broken lower
jaw and gum damage, which caused the dog to lose teeth. Little Bit’s treatment cost
over $2,500.
               On cross-examination, Biesecker testified that on December 11, 2018,
she took her dogs for a walk around 6:00 p.m. Although it was dark outside, she
could still see where she was walking. Biesecker testified that her dogs did not bite
the pitbull. Biesecker clarified that the surgery to Little Bit’s jaw impeded blood
flow to his gums, and this caused the loss of teeth. The veterinarian did not find any
puncture marks on Little Bit, just a broken jaw. Biesecker stated that on December
                                           3
18, 2018, she sent a letter to Donna Serrbocco, in which Biesecker asserted that Ms.
Serrbocco was responsible for the pitbull’s attack since the dog lived in Ms.
Serrbocco’s home.
             Tracy Daywalt, an animal control officer for 23 townships in
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, testified in person that she received a call about
the dog incident on December 11, 2018. She went to Serrbocco’s residence and was
told by Serrbocco and a woman at the residence that “the dog got out and went across
the street and there was a scruffle between the dogs[.]” N.T. 53. They stated that
their pitbull, Cali, was not bitten.
             Daywalt testified that in her report for Montgomery County Health
Department, she listed the injured animal, Little Bit, as belonging to Biesecker, with
an injury to its mouth. She did not see the injured dog because it was at the
Veterinary Center. She listed Cali as belonging to Serrbocco because he stated that
he owned the dog. Daywalt asked for proof of rabies vaccination and licensing for
the dog, but Serrbocco could not produce such documentation.
             Jon Daywalt, an animal control officer for Pottstown, testified in person
that it is his responsibility to enforce animal control laws.       Based upon the
information he received from Tracy Daywalt, and after speaking with the dog
warden, he issued Serrbocco a citation for harboring a dangerous dog.
             In response, Serrbocco introduced testimonial and documentary
evidence. Lindsey Tuzzi, Serrbocco’s girlfriend, testified that at approximately
“9:15 at night,” on December 11, 2018, she was outside with the pitbull, Cali, on the
sidewalk. N.T. 70. When Biesecker came around the corner in front of Serrbocco’s
house with her three dogs, Biesecker’s dogs started biting Cali on the stomach.
Tuzzi testified that she never saw Cali bite or pick up any of Biesecker’s dogs. Tuzzi
stated that Serrbocco and his brother “came out and picked Cali up.” N.T. 72. Cali
                                          4
had a bite on her side. Tuzzi testified that Serrbocco’s brother was the owner of
Cali, and Serrbocco only helped “pay for the food.” N.T. 74. Tuzzi admitted that
when she took Cali out, Cali was not leashed.
               Serrbocco’s mother, Donna Serrbocco, testified that she is the owner of
Cali. She did not witness the incident on December 11, 2018.
               At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Serrbocco guilty of
harboring a dangerous animal. The trial court stated that this case came down “to
credibility among the witnesses who testified.” N.T. 87. The trial court explained
that Little Bit sustained a broken jaw, which was a significant injury. It credited
Brewer’s testimony that she retrieved two dogs from the ruckus occurring in the
middle of the street and that the pitbull was not on a leash. Her testimony was
confirmed by Tuzzi and by the animal control officer’s investigation report. As to
the ownership of the pitbull, the trial court credited Daywalt’s testimony that
Serrbocco told her that the pitbull belonged to him. The trial court sentenced
Serrbocco to pay a fine of $500 and restitution to Biesecker in the amount of $2,500.
Serrbocco appealed.4
               On appeal,5 Serrbocco argues that he was denied his right to
confrontation under both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania
Constitution when the trial court allowed two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses to
testify by Zoom. The Commonwealth responds that Serrbocco waived this issue by
failing to preserve it at trial.

4
  Serrbocco initially appealed to the Superior Court, which transferred the case to this Court.
5
  Our review of a trial court’s conviction following a trial de novo determines whether the trial
court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, whether the trial court erred as a matter of
law, or whether the trial court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Hake, 738 A.2d 46, 47 n.4
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
                                                   5
             By way of background, the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee a
criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses that testify against him,
including the right to cross-examine those witnesses. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI;
PA. CONST. art. I, §9. As our Supreme Court has explained, the right of confrontation
“provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to
face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination.”
Commonwealth v. Wilson, 602 A.2d 1290, 1296 (Pa. 1992).
             To preserve a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence, the
party must specifically object to the admission of evidence at trial and state the
specific grounds for the objection. Commonwealth v. Smith, 213 A.3d 307, 309 (Pa.
Super. 2019).    Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103(a), Rulings on Evidence,
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
             (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a
             ruling to admit or exclude evidence only:
                    (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
                           (A) makes a timely objection, motion to strike, or
                           motion in limine; and
                           (B) states the specific ground, unless it was
                           apparent from the context[.]

PA.R.E. 103(a) (emphasis added). A general objection is insufficient and “if the
ground upon which an objection is based is specifically stated, all other reasons for
its exclusion are waived, and may not be raised post trial.” Commonwealth v.
Stoltzfus, 337 A.2d 873, 881 (Pa. 1975).
             “‘The absence of a contemporaneous objection below constitutes a
waiver’ of the claim on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 174 A.3d 1130, 1145

                                           6
(Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 423 (Pa. 2008)).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
             [I]t is axiomatic that issues are preserved when objections are
             made timely to the error or offense. See Commonwealth v. May,
             [] 887 A.2d 750, 761([Pa.] 2005) (holding that an “absence of
             contemporaneous objections renders” an appellant’s claim
             waived); and Commonwealth v. Bruce, [] 916 A.2d 657, 671
             ([Pa. Super.] 2007), appeal denied, [] 932 A.2d 74 ([Pa.] 2007)
             (holding that a “failure to offer a timely and specific objection
             results in waiver of” the claim). Therefore, we shall consider any
             issue waived where Appellant failed to assert a timely objection.

Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59, 73 (Pa. 2008). “Issues not raised in
the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” PA.
R.A.P. 302(a). This includes constitutional issues. Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 256
A.3d 1242, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2021).
             Similarly, a new theory for an objection made at trial cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Cline, 177 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super.
2017). “The rule is well settled that a party complaining, on appeal, of the admission
of evidence in the [c]ourt below will be confined to the specific objection there
made.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1041 (Pa. 2007) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Boden, 159 A.2d 894, 900 (Pa. 1960)).
             With this background, we address the Commonwealth’s argument that
Serrbocco has waived the issue of his right to confront the witnesses against him.
             At the September 22, 2021, summary appeal trial, the following
discussion occurred:
                   [Commonwealth]: Your Honor, I did request earlier
             permission for an Eve Brewer to appear by Zoom. She had just
             given birth recently two weeks ago. And when I went out to
             check for my witnesses, I notice[d Biesecker] was not here. I did
             call her. I am not exactly sure what happened or where the
                                          7
miscommunication on her end in terms of her not being here in
person. She has logged into Zoom. I do understand I think the
defense is objecting to her appearing by Zoom and I will let
defense speak to that.
       [Serrbocco’s Counsel]: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. I
actually object to any witness appearing via Zoom. Primarily in
the statute here that is governing this, Title 3 Pennsylvania
Statute 459-502-A, it has the standard written clearly that this is
to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the equivalent of
a bench trial. This is not a traffic citation. And I highly object
to any witnesses appearing by Zoom. They need to be here in
person.
       I have exhibits that I need to show to them and I have tried
holding up exhibits to the camera within this past year. It just
doesn’t work. And then also to observe their demeanor and what
they say. With this high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt
to have anybody appear via Zoom at this level I think is
inappropriate. It is one thing for preliminary hearings, because
there is nothing at preliminary hearings that can’t be fixed at a
trial honestly, but right now this is the trial. So I would object to
either Ms. Brewer or Ms. Biesecker appearing via Zoom. It
would not be appropriate for just considering this is a bench trial.
                              ****
       [Commonwealth]: . . . When I called [Biesecker] moments
ago to ask where she was, my understanding she was going to be
here, she said that she thought she didn’t need to appear. I am
not sure where the confusion was. I did just email her the Zoom
link to log in. I let [Serrbocco’s counsel] know. I recognize she
is objecting to that. I mean we have been doing these Zoom
hearings throughout the pandemic and it has been sufficient for
that purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.
       The Court: As the finder of fact, the beyond a reasonable
doubt is up to me, and at the end of this if I have doubt, I will say
that, but I am not going to presume that prior to the start of trial.
So I am going to overrule the objection and we will proceed with
this matter. I would think that you all would want some finality
regardless. If your concern is the showing of your evidence, we
can share it on Zoom. That comes across clearly.

                              8
                    [Serrbocco’s Counsel]: Your Honor, how would we in the
             practical sense share it on Zoom?
                    The Court: You give it to my clerk. She will scan it and
             put in something and put it up there.
                  [Serrbocco’s Counsel]: I still – would hold my objection,
             Your Honor –
                    The Court: I note your objection. The objection is noted,
             but we are going to proceed with this. . . . This trial is going on
             today.
                   [Serrbocco’s Counsel]: It is clear, Your Honor, we don’t
             object to the trial proceeding. It is just –
                    The Court: I heard you the first time you said that.
                    [Serrbocco’s Counsel]: Okay.

N.T. 3-6 (emphasis added). Following his conviction, Serrbocco argued, in a post-
sentence motion, that the trial court’s decision to overrule his objection to the Zoom
testimony of two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses violated his constitutional right
to confront witnesses against him. The trial court denied Serrbocco’s motion.
             In its opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925(a), PA. R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court stated that Serrbocco waived the issue of
his right to confront witnesses. It explained that, at trial, Serrbocco did not cite the
confrontation clause of the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions as the basis
of his objection. Rather, the objection was based on the argument that the standard
of beyond reasonable doubt could not be satisfied by having witnesses testify by
Zoom.
             The record confirms that in his objection to witness testimony by Zoom,
Serrbocco did not raise the right of confrontation or mention the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. Even after the trial court overruled Serrbocco’s objection based upon
the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, Serrbocco did not raise his constitutional
                                           9
right to confrontation. Rather, Serrbocco discussed the logistics of showing the
exhibits to the witnesses.
                However, Serrbocco contends that the trial court misunderstood his
objection. He explains that the objection based upon the standard of proof being
“beyond a reasonable doubt” was an argument that he was entitled to the full panoply
of constitutional rights guaranteed to criminal defendants, including the right to
confrontation. Serrbocco Brief at 10. Further, his assertion that the “[witnesses]
need to be here in person” was an inarticulately worded objection to the right to
confront witnesses. Id.
                We are not persuaded. An objection to witness testimony by Zoom
based on standard of proof does not encompass the right to confront witnesses
against the defendant. Beyond a reasonable doubt relates to the “measure of
persuasion by which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential
elements of guilt.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361 (1970) (quotation omitted).
“Due process considerations protect those accused of committing a crime from
conviction ‘except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Commonwealth v.
Chichkin, 232 A.3d 959, 970 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. at
364). Due process is guaranteed by the Fifth6 and Fourteenth7 Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.8
See Commonwealth v. Williams, 733 A.2d 593, 603 (Pa. 1999) (criminal punishment
requires full panoply of protections guaranteed by due process). In short, to the

6
  It states, in pertinent part: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law[.]” U.S. CONST. amend. V.
7
  It states, in pertinent part: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law[.]” U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
8
  It states, in relevant part: “In all criminal prosecutions . . . nor can [the accused] be deprived of
his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” PA. CONST.
art. I, §9.
                                                    10
extent that the objection based on standard of proof raised a constitutional issue, this
issue was due process of law.
               However, the right to confront witnesses does not arise from the due
process guarantee. Rather, it arises from the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The objection
to testimony by Zoom had to state a ground, and the right to confront witnesses was
not stated. PA.R.E. 103(a)(1). The issue cannot be advanced for the first time in
post-sentence motions or on appeal. Brown v. Halpern, 202 A.3d 687, 708 (Pa.
Super. 2019) (party failed to preserve a claim of trial court error for overruling
objection based on relevance where trial objection was based on hearsay); cf. Doe-
Spun, Inc. v. Morgan 502 A.2d 287, 289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (finding that citing
statute for the first time on appeal did not constitute a new claim of error but provided
authority for the theory presented to the trial court).
               We hold that Serrbocco’s objection did not preserve the right to
confront witnesses. His stated ground for the objection to testimony by Zoom was
that such testimony would not satisfy the applicable standard of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. This issue encompasses a due process claim, but it does not
encompass the right to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the order of the trial court
is affirmed.
                             ____________________________________________
                             MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                           11
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania       :
                                   :
            v.                     :     No. 1259 C.D. 2021
                                   :
Nicholas Serrbocco,                :
                       Appellant   :

                                   ORDER
            AND NOW this 3rd day of February, 2023, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County dated September 22, 2021, in the above-
captioned matter, is AFFIRMED.

                         ____________________________________________
                         MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita