ShareThis Page
News

Springfield man headed for court

| Friday, April 13, 2012

Charges against a former Springfield Township man accused of not registering as a sex offender have been held for county court.

Christopher O. Miller, 28, formerly of 257 Hawkins Hollow Road, Springfield Township, was charged with failing to comply with registration of sexual-offender requirements and providing accurate information.

Miller, who became a convicted sex offender in October 2010, allegedly gave an address to state police at Uniontown on Feb. 3 of his residence at 257 Hawkins Hollow Road, which turned out to be a trailer that was unlivable due to a structure fire.

Trooper Heather Clem investigated the incident and found that the trailer fire occurred on Jan. 29.

At his preliminary hearing on Thursday, Miller testified he called the Uniontown barracks two days after the fire but he couldn't identify the trooper to whom he allegedly spoke.

Miller said the trooper told him he didn't have to update his status if he was still receiving mail at the address but he had to go to the barracks to add a phone number to his Megan's Law registration; he then received a ride from a friend and went to the barracks where he met another trooper whom he could not describe.

"He had 48 hours to report in person," Clem said as she held up the sexual offender worksheet that Miller signed. "He was fully aware he has to report himself to us in person."

Thomas Shaffer, Miller's public defender, said Miller followed the law of the commonwealth and fulfilled his legal obligation with the phone call.

"He followed the law," Shaffer said. "I believe he's telling the truth."

District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr. held all charges for county court with a formal arrangement scheduled in Courtroom One at the Fayette County Courthouse at 9:30 a.m. May 17.

He remains in the Fayette County Prison in lieu of $10,000 bond.

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.

click me