CLEARFIELD – An appeal of a Clearfield County Judge ruling that a homicide case be transferred to juvenile court has been upheld by a ruling last week by The Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Aaron John Klingensmith of Luthersburg was only 14-years old when he allegedly shot and killed a girl at his home on April 28, 2024.
In a press statement released shortly after the charges were filed, District Attorney Ryan Sayers explained, “This is a heartbreaking and tragic shooting that occurred on Sunday evening in Brady Township. In the interest of justice, the difficult decision was made to charge this juvenile as an adult, instead of remaining in the juvenile system.”
The key to the decision by President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman to move the case was findings of Dr. Veronique Valliere who evaluated Klingensmith in August 2024. After her evaluation, she determined that this was not a murder but “a really stupid thing an impulsive teenager did to show off.”
The appeal by the Commonwealth argued against this opinion, saying Klingensmith’s actions were intentional.
At the preliminary hearing in May 2024, testimony from the investigator, Trooper Lauren Strishock of the state police, detailed the events. Klingensmith explained to her that he and the girl were at his home when he asked her if she wanted to see his dad’s gun. He then got it from the top of a gun cabinet in the living room and sat beside her on the couch. Klingensmith pointed it at her, asked “loaded or unloaded” and pulled the
trigger, he told police.
The trooper also testified that the autopsy report listed the cause of death as a gun shot wound to the head and the manner of death as homicide. The victim died on May 1, 2024 at UPMC Children’s Hospital in Pittsburgh.
Following the hearing, District Judge Jerry Nevling ruled all charges, criminal homicide, along with two counts of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person, be sent on to the county court.
Klingensmith’s attorney, Chris Pentz, filed a motion to move the case to juvenile court in September 2024 after Valliere’s evaluation.
Ammerman granted the petition moving the case saying it is the public’s interest to decertify the case and transfer it to juvenile court, according to court documents.
In the opinion, Ammerman stated that the “juvenile does not present as a threat to public safety.” Klingensmith has no prior criminal history, previous delinquent acts, behavioral issues, mental disorders or anti-social personalities other than attention deficit disorder.
Valliere stated that he was honest with her about what happened and “broke down crying when discussing what he had done”. She determined he has no risk factors “suggesting future violent behavior.”
She noted that he did not have any hostility toward the victim and “no reason to target or harm her.”
The documents state that “the juvenile seemed regretful and as though he did not ‘fully grasp’ that the victim – a friend of the juvenile – was deceased and he would never be able to talk to her again.”
Because of his age, Klingensmith would have seven years for therapy, discipline and rehabilitation in a juvenile facility, it explains.
“For these reasons, the court finds that the juvenile is amenable to treatment.
“The juvenile is young and still a bit immature and does not seem to grasp the gravity of what has happened. Therefore, he does not show the mental capacity a dangerous or repeating offender may have. Additionally, the juvenile did not commit a crime that involved any real level of criminal sophistication. He believed the weapon was unloaded, pulled the trigger spur of the moment, and the actions he took were described by Dr. Valliere as a tragic accident,” the court documents state.
The decision in the appeal agreed with this conclusion.
The decision reads, “In sum, the trial court weighed all of the statutory factors and found that Appellee had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer of his case to the juvenile division would be in the public’s interest. The trial court demonstrated a clear understanding of Dr. Valliere’s testimony, and found her opinions to be credible.”
“As the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the statutory factors, and the Commonwealth’s arguments are otherwise without merit, the order transferring Appellee’s case to the juvenile division must be upheld.”
The second issue in the appeal was that Ammerman’s decision was untimely and came after the required 20-day deadline following the hearing, was also dismissed.
In the hearing on Nov. 25, 2024, the Commonwealth asked for time to file briefs on the issue. Ammerman gave both sides 25 days to provide their argument and another seven days was added for responses, after which his decision was made Jan. 23, 2025.
The Superior Court’s decision states:
“Accordingly, the trial court’s mistake in granting the Commonwealth’s request, and permitting the Commonwealth to file briefs beyond the 20-day jurisdictional deadline for a ruling, was a breakdown in court operations. The remedy for that breakdown is for this Court to excuse the untimeliness of the trial court’s order granting a transfer and to give that order the trial court’s intended effect.”
For the complete story on the original preliminary hearing in this case, click here.
