Conviction upheld in Ligonier bar killing
An appeals court has upheld the first-degree murder conviction of a Texas man serving a life prison sentence for killing a Ligonier bar patron when they argued over a television news program in 2011.
A three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court found there was enough evidence during the week-long trial last year to find Stephen Fromholz guilty of the murder charge.
Prosecutors said Fromholz fired one shot from an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle into the back of 65-year-old Donald Holler of Cook Township in Fat Daddy's Bar on July 22, 2011.
Fromholz, 43, of San Antonio was an out-of-work carpenter originally from the Ligonier area.
Witnesses testified that the two men argued in the restaurant and bar on Route 30 over a television news program on the war in Afghanistan. Fromholz left the bar, returned with the gun and shot Holler, they said.
Fromholz contended in the appeal that jurors did not properly weigh evidence that he was too drunk to form an intent to kill.
Westmoreland County Judge Al Bell, who presided over the trial, rejected a similar appeal earlier this year.
The appeals court rejected all of Fromholz's claims.
“... The trial testimony sufficiently demonstrated he was not so overwhelmed that he lost control of his faculties,” Judge Susan Peikes Gantman wrote in the 11-page ruling issued on Wednesday.
According to trial testimony, witnesses heard Fromholz say, “I'll show you what war is like,” before he raised the gun and fired the fatal shot.
Police said more customers could have been killed in the shooting.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 email@example.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 â 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.