Share This Page

N. Huntingdon man says he didn't buy kids booze, pleads no contest

| Tuesday, April 30, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

A North Huntingdon man accused of providing alcohol for an underage drinking party last summer pleaded no contest Monday.

But Steven Mathew Greenawalt, 30, of Clay Pike Road, told Judge Debra Pezze that he did not buy alcohol for the group.

“I admit that I know they had it,” Greenawalt said.

He was sentenced to serve two years' probation on charges of corruption of minors and furnishing alcohol to minors. A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but it is treated as such for purposes of sentencing.

Pezze said that if Greenawalt has no problems during the first year of probation, she would close the case early.

Police and paramedics responded on July 23 to a garage underneath a banquet hall at the Shirley Funeral Home on Clay Pike Road.

They found a 16-year-old male, identified in court documents as B.O., who was unresponsive and covered in vomit.

The teen was taken to Excela Health Westmoreland Hospital in Greensburg and later flown to Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh.

An estimated 30 to 40 juveniles were at the party, according to police.

A teen identified in court documents as J.S. told police that Greenawalt had provided them with vodka.

Pezze acknowledged that Greenawalt called police to aid the unresponsive teen.

“That's why he didn't die,” Pezze said. “It's admirable that you took those steps and ... literally saved his life.”

Renatta Signorini is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-837-5374 or rsignorini@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.