Knauf v. Kramme, 623 EDA 2022

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtMcCAFFERY, J.
PartiesNATANYA SHARON KNAUF v. ALEXANDER JOHN KRAMME Appellant
Docket Number623 EDA 2022,J-A21031-22
Decision Date16 September 2022

NATANYA SHARON KNAUF
v.

ALEXANDER JOHN KRAMME Appellant

No. 623 EDA 2022

No. J-A21031-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 16, 2022


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-22091

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM

McCAFFERY, J.

Alexander John Kramme (Appellant) appeals, pro se, from the January 25, 2022, final order granting the petition for protection from abuse (PFA),[1]filed by Natanya Sharon Knauf (Appellee). Appellant argues, among other things, that the court erred in granting the PFA petition because: (1) Appellee failed to provide evidence to support her claims; (2) the court should have found his testimony more credible; and (3) the court committed judicial misconduct. Based on the following, we dismiss this appeal.

The trial court summarized the underlying facts and procedural history as follows:

1
On January 25, 2022, the parties appeared before the court for a Final [PFA] hearing, following the entry of a Temporary [PFA] Order entered on October 29, 2021.1
1 The temporary order was continued on November 28, 2021 and again on December 6, 2021
The parties proceeded pro se at the [PFA] hearing [Appellee] testified as a witness on her own behalf, as did her mother. [Appellee] testified that [Appellant] stated to [Appellee]'s mother that he wanted to kill both [Appellee] and her new boyfriend. This incident occurred in September 2021, and [Appellee] filed for the temporary PFA in October 2021. [Appellee] further testified that in 2018 she received letters, sent to her from [Appellant], indicating that [he] wanted to kill [Appellee] and her intimate partner When questioned by the court if she was afraid of [Appellant], [Appellee] responded "yes." Additionally, [Appellee] indicated that she worried that if [Appellant] was aware of her current address, he would come to her home with a gun. [Appellee] testified that [Appellant] owned guns in the past.
Linda Knauf, [Appellee]'s mother, took the stand as a witness for [Appellee]. Prior to testifying, Ms. Knauf was sequestered in the hallway and unable to hear the proceedings taking place in the courtroom. Ms. Knauf testified that [Appellant] was at her house in September of 2021 to pick up the parties' daughter. At that time he stated that he would get the gun, hide it and have it ready for when he needs it.
[Appellant] was the only witness to testify on his behalf. In his testimony he stated that [Appellee]'s allegation of threats against herself and her boyfriend was false. [Appellant] did not present any corroborating evidence to support this assertion.
On January 25, 2022, following the hearing, th[e trial] court entered a final [PFA] order on behalf of [Appellee], Natanya Knauf. The court entered the order for a period of [two] years, directing that the order is to expire on January 25, 2024. Custody of the parties' daughter was not address as there [was] an existing custody docket.
2

Trial Ct. Op., 4/15/22, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted). This timely appeal followed.[2]

Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

[A.] Witness [Appellee]'s testimony should have been discarded, because sufficient evidence existed for presentation to the judge to impeach her . . . credibility.
[B. Because Appellee] testified against [Appellant] by hearsay alone, [her] testimony should have been entirely discounted.
[C.] Previous threats of [Appellant] against [Appellee] were inadmissible as evidence owing to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT