Homicide charge against mentally ill man likely to be dropped
The homicide case against a mentally incompetent Fayette County man who was accused in 2006 of pushing a man off a wall of a personal care home will likely be dismissed, following a hearing held in Fayette County Court on Tuesday.
Craig Geness, 48, was charged with killing 61-year-old Ronald Fiffik after Fiffik died from injuries allegedly sustained after he fell about five feet from a wall outside McVey Personal Care Home in Uniontown.
Geness’ attorney, Bernadette Tummons, petitioned the court in May to dismiss the lone homicide charge, contending the prosecution has never advanced enough evidence to justify arresting Geness.
At Tuesday’s hearing on the petition, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks Jr. said he had a long conversation with Rhonda Fiffik, the daughter of the decedent.
“She was in agreement that we would not proceed with this matter,” Heneks told the court. He said he and Rhonda Fiffik agreed a guardian should be appointed for Geness, to make sure he’s cared for and that he’s not a threat to the community.
Heneks said he was waiting for Tummons to hand over a final report on Geness and submit a petition for guardianship, then he would draft a motion to nolle prosse, or decline to prosecute, the charge.
Presently, Geness is at a residential facility in Masontown, Heneks said. He wears an ankle bracelet to monitor his whereabouts, at the expense of the Fayette County Prison, Heneks said.
Judge Steve P. Leskinen noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged crime, and that the police relied on a statement from the owner of the personal care home that he had seen Geness walking away from where Fiffik was found.
“There’s a reasonable possibility that he fell,” Leskinen stated.
Tummons took issue with the fact that the court seemed to lean toward establishing a guardian for Geness.
“All of this discussion is putting the cart before the horse,” she said. “Once the nolle prosse is issued, (Geness) then kicks into a civil commitment, and we’re not there. We’re not there.”
Tummons argued that since the commonwealth has no evidence that Geness committed a crime, the proper disposition of the case would be for the court to grant her motion to dismiss the charge, rather than Heneks declining to prosecute him.
Having someone civilly committed is the normal outcome in a case where the evidence has been tested in court, and there’s some indication that the person did something wrong, said Tummons.
“That doesn’t apply in our case,” she stated. “This fellow did nothing wrong.”
She said that based on what she believed was a physical impossibility that Ronald Fiffik could have been pushed from the wall, and the lack of any witnesses who could confirm that he and Geness were even on the porch at the same time, there was no reason to believe Geness killed him.
“He has not been incarcerated justly,” Tummons said.
If there’s no evidence Geness, who Tummons said is severely intellectually disabled, pushed anyone, there’s no reason for the commonwealth to consider him a threat in need of monitoring.
Tummons contended the case should never have lingered this long, that a judge should have granted Geness’ first petition to have the case dismissed for lack of evidence.
Leskinen noted that a hearing had been scheduled on that petition, but Geness was ordered to a mental health facility for a competency evaluation and subsequently declared incompetent, leaving the matter of the hearing unaddressed.
According to Tummons, the commonwealth’s evidence should have been tested at that stage, regardless of whether Geness was competent.
Both Leskinen and Heneks questioned why Tummons was unsatisfied with the prosecution’s offer to drop the charge, pending the petition for guardianship.
“The commonwealth is proposing a reasonable solution,” Leskinen said. “What’s the harm?”
Tummons accused the prosecution of making “an end run around the goal post” by dropping the charge while requiring Geness to remain under court-ordered guardianship.
“I’m trying to end this case,” said Heneks. “I don’t know what counsel’s ire is inspired by.”
Tummons iterated that she would like to see the court grant her petition to dismiss the charge for lack of evidence, and then deal with the matter of whether Geness needs a guardian afterwards.
“I say to the court, ‘We win today,'” said Tummons.
Heneks said he would draw up the appropriate paperwork to have the charge dismissed by way of a nolle prosse order, and Leskinen said he would likely grant it.
Tummons asked that Heneks specify in the documentation why his office chose not to prosecute.