ShareThis Page
Victims miss hearing; Charges are dismissed |

Victims miss hearing; Charges are dismissed

The Tribune-Review
| Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:00 a.m

Charges against two men accused of breaking into a Connellsville home and robbing its occupants at gunpoint were dropped Tuesday after the victims failed to show up for a preliminary hearing.

Bullskin Township District Justice Robert Breakiron dismissed charges of burglary, robbery, criminal conspiracy, reckless endangerment, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault and criminal trespass against Maurice Sledge, 18, of Columbus, Ohio, and Sherman T. Aldrich, 31, of 441 Clarendon Ave., Monessen.

Aldrich also had been charged with carrying a firearm without a license.

The pair was accused of breaking into a 409 S. Arch St. residence occupied by Aaron Jeffries, Joni Showman and Showman’s infant child shortly before midnight Oct. 9. A third man, Norman English of Connellsville, is still being sought by police in connection with the incident,

In an affidavit of probable cause, police alleged that Aldrich held a revolver to Jeffries’ head while the trio threatened to kill Jeffries, Showman and the child if Jeffries did not hand over the money the robbers demanded.

Connellsville police Cpl. Ronald Haggerty Jr. told Breakiron yesterday in court that he had contacted the victims on Monday and was assured they would be at yesterday’s hearing. After Jeffries and Showman didn’t show up, police sent to the victims’ residence found no one at home.

Sledge and Aldrich will be released from Fayette County Prison, where they had been held on $30,000 bond since their arrest. Charges may be refiled if authorities determine there was good cause for the victims’ absence from yesterday’s proceedings.

“If we find out they were threatened, we will refile the charges,” Haggerty said.

Charges filed against English remain active pending his apprehension.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.