Title: Vito v. Vito

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

380 Pa. Superior Ct. 258 (1988) 551 A.2d 573 Marjilou VITO, Appellee, v. Salvatore VITO, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 8, 1988. Filed December 13, 1988. Reargument Denied February 6, 1989. *259 Robert M. Rosenblum, Stroudsburg, for appellant. Before WIEAND, McEWEN and MELINSON, JJ. WIEAND, Judge: Salvatore Vito was found guilty of contempt for violating an order entered pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Act of October 7, 1976, P.L. 1090, No. 218, 35 P.S. § 10181 et seq. He was sentenced to serve a six month period of probation upon the following conditions: On direct appeal, Vito argues that the trial court refused to recognize that he was being tried for a criminal offense and accord to him the procedural safeguards accompanying such a proceeding.[1] We are constrained to agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial. *260 The Supreme Court of the United States discussed the difference between civil and criminal contempt in Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 108 S. Ct. 1423, 99 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1988) and held that the nature of the proceedings must be determined "from an examination of the character of the relief itself." Id. at ___, 108 S. Ct. at 1432, 99 L. Ed. 2d at 734. The Court said: Id. at ___-___, 108 S. Ct. at 1429-1430, 99 L. Ed. 2d at 731-732 (footnotes omitted). Pennsylvania courts have also recognized and adhered to this distinction. The case of In re Martorano, 464 Pa. 66, 346 A.2d 22 (1975) provided the Pennsylvania Supreme Court an opportunity to review the distinction; and the Court responded by saying that judicial responses to contumacious behavior are classified Id., 464 Pa. at 78-80, 346 A.2d at 28-29 (citations and footnotes omitted). See also: Fatemi v. Fatemi, 371 Pa.Super. 101, 111-112, 537 A.2d 840, 845 (1988); Colbert v. Gunning, 368 Pa.Super. 28, 31, 533 A.2d 471, 472 (1987); Bruzzi v. Bruzzi, 332 Pa.Super. 346, 351-353, 481 A.2d 648, 651-652 (1984); Grubb v. Grubb, 326 Pa.Super. 218, 222-223, 473 A.2d 1060, 1062 (1984); Kramer v. Kelly, 265 Pa.Super. 58, 63-64, 401 A.2d 799, 801-802 (1979). In Cipolla v. Cipolla, 264 Pa.Super. 53, 398 A.2d 1053 (1979), the Superior Court discussed indirect criminal contempt proceedings and described the procedural safeguards to which a defendant is entitled. It said: Id., 264 Pa.Superior Ct. at 58-60, 398 A.2d at 1055-1056 (footnotes omitted). See also: Altemose Construction Co. v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity et al., 449 Pa. 194, 221, 296 A.2d 504, 519 (1972) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance, Pomeroy, J.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S. Ct. 1901, 36 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1973); Knaus v. Knaus, 387 Pa. 370, 375, 127 A.2d 669, 672 (1956); L & J Equipment Co., Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America, 339 Pa.Super. 51, 56-58, 488 A.2d 303, 306-307 (1985); Schnabel Associates, Inc. v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, AFL-CIO, 338 Pa.Super. 376, 387, 487 A.2d 1327, 1333 (1985); 42 Pa.C.S. § 4136. In the instant case, appellant was accused of violating a court order entered pursuant to the Pennsylvania *265 Protection from Abuse Act.[2] He was accused via petition filed by his wife, containing averments that he had violated the protection order by acts of domestic violence. This petition was filed consistently with Section 10 of the Protection from Abuse Act which provides that "[u]pon violation of a protection order or a court approved consent agreement the court may hold the defendant in indirect criminal contempt and punish him in accordance with law." 35 P.S. § 10190(a), as amended. In requiring that defendant be found in contempt and punished according to law, it will be observed, the legislature did not in any way attempt to alter or circumvent the rights of a defendant in criminal contempt proceedings.[3] The trial court, following hearing, found that appellant had violated the court's order and was in contempt of court. The court thereupon sentenced appellant to probation and imposed the conditions hereinbefore recited. The sentence was not conditional upon appellant's failure to purge himself of contempt. Appellant was powerless to escape the court's sentence by compliance with the protection order. As such, it was punitive and not coercive. Because the sentence was punitive and was intended to vindicate the authority of the court, it was criminal in *266 nature and not civil. Such a sentence for contempt cannot properly be imposed unless the defendant has been afforded the protections which the federal and state constitutions require in criminal proceedings. Despite objections repeatedly made by appellant's counsel, the trial court refused to acknowledge that the proceedings were criminal in nature and apply constitutional safeguards. Instead, the trial judge announced that the hearing was a "domestic matter" in which he would allow the parties to have their say and then "do something fair and equitable." When appellant objected to testimony pertaining to acts not alleged in the petition on grounds that there had been no prior notice,[4] the following occurred: At another point in the proceedings, appellant's counsel objected to the testimony of the petitioning wife when she attempted to describe an event which, according to her own admission, she had not observed. In response to this objection, the following occurred: Appellant argues that the trial court, because of its failure to recognize that it was hearing a criminal matter, applied an improper burden of proof. The law is clear that in criminal contempt proceedings, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hicks v. Feiock, supra; Cipolla v. Cipolla, supra. Whether the court required something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, however, is not certain. The trial court has not disclosed the burden of proof which it applied. It is abundantly clear from the record, however, that the trial court repeatedly misperceived the nature of the proceedings which it was hearing. Under these circumstances, the trial court may well have misperceived also the burden of proof which had to be met before appellant could be found guilty of criminal contempt. *268 In any event, because the trial court failed to understand the nature of the proceedings and thereby failed to accord to appellant the constitutional protections required in criminal proceedings, a new trial is required. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction is not retained. [1] The specific questions raised on appeal are stated as follows: A. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL SINCE HE WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. B. WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL SINCE THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. C. WHETHER THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL SINCE THE TRIAL COURT APPLIED THE WRONG BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. [2] The order was as follows: AND NOW, February 10, 1987, the respondent having specifically denied any wrongdoing, but the parties having agreed to the entry of an Order, it is ordered as follows: 1. The respondent, Salvatore Vito, is directed to refrain from any physical abuse, harassment or threats thereof toward the petitioner, Marjilou Viot, [sic] and their children. 2. Exclusive possession of the marital premises at RD 7, Box 7312, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania is granted to the petitioner, and the respondent shall not enter upon said premises, except for the purpose of picking up or dropping off the children, or upon specific invitation of the petitioner. 3. This Order shall remain in effect for a period of one year from today's date. 4. A copy of this Order shall be served upon the Stroud Township Police Department, which shall constitute sufficient warrant for the arrest of the respondent in the event he should violate this Order. [3] The statute provides, however, that there is no right to trial by jury on charges of indirect criminal contempt arising under the Protection from Abuse Act. See: 35 P.S. § 10190(b). [4] A defendant in a criminal contempt proceeding is entitled to "reasonable notice of the specific contempt charges against him." Commonwealth v. Mayberry, 459 Pa. 91, 106, 327 A.2d 86, 94 (1974).