A summary harassment appeal trial was halted Friday after an unexpected disagreement between prosecutors and the defense couldn't be resolved.

Brittany A. Hartos, 27, of Irwin, Westmoreland County, is charged with harassing employees of a victim outreach center during her time as a client there in 2018.

Her summary trial before Common Pleas Judge Timothy McCune on Friday was abruptly rescheduled 30 minutes into the proceeding after her lawyer, Victor Vouga, argued that the surprise introduction of Hartos' voicemails to the organization by prosecutors violated the agreed upon purview of the trial.

At the heart of the argument is the inclusion of 300 phone calls, voicemails, text messages and emails that Hartos allegedly sent to Butler's Victim Outreach Intervention Center.

Hartos sought the help of VOICe after a personal incident in 2017. The organization, which has a stated intent is to help “survivors” of domestic violence through various resources, housed Hartos in its residential facility starting in 2017.

Removed from VOICe housing

But Hartos was kicked out of the housing facility after she was charged with threatening District Attorney Richard Goldinger through a call to a suicide prevention hot line. The criminal charge constitutes a violation of the agency's sublease. That case has since been dropped by the Attorney General's Office, but prosecutors claim that Hartos did not take being removed well.

Police allege that between April 23 and Sept. 26, 2018, Hartos made more than 300 harassing and threatening phone calls, voicemails, text messages and emails in the aftermath of her removal. Hartos originally was charged with harassment, a third-degree misdemeanor.

On Oct. 11, prosecutors with the state Attorney General's Office reduced the charge to summary harassment. But Hartos declined to accept the plea deal, taking the case to a summary appeal trial.

On Friday, Senior Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte called VOICe executive director Linda Strachan to the stand.

Strachan started to testify that after Hartos' termination, VOICe began to get calls from her over a period of several months that were “very angry, upset.”

But Vouga objected, arguing that during discovery prosecutors only turned over two voicemails and some handwritten notes as evidence of harassment.

Vouga said that by discussing this topic, “he was left in the dark” since he never reviewed the numerous voicemails Strachan was referencing.

“I'd need to go through all these voicemails,” Vouga told McCune. “We're not going to get this in two hours, we'd need two days.”

Legitimacy of phone calls questioned

Vouga also questioned whether all 300 calls were legitimate, arguing that Hartos still was a client with the victim outreach organization, that many of the calls were made to her therapist and that the other calls could have been encouraged by the organization.

“None of them are harassment,” Vouga said. “They may all be legitimate. This leaves me in an impossible situation.”

Schulte argued that he didn't deceive Vouga. He said he promised Vouga that he wouldn't play the voicemails during the trial.

McCune overruled Vouga's objection, and Vouga made a follow-up objection several minutes later.

Strachan began to describe the voicemails as “alarming because they could be very vulgar, I felt threatened by them.”

This elicited Vouga's objection.

“How am I supposed to defend if I haven't heard the voicemails?” Vouga asked McCune. “They specifically said they wouldn't use this, but now they are. I feel like I should be able to rely on what the commonwealth is saying, but now they're doing exactly what they said they wouldn't. They're introducing it sideways.”

After a back and forth, McCune granted a request for continuance, so that Vouga could go through a CD with all the voicemails on it.

McCune noted that prosecutors don't need to play all 300 voicemails to establish a course of conduct in the harassment case. He said, on the other hand, if there are calls on there that are legitimate calls Hartos made to her therapist, “that's something the court needs to consider.”