J-A24005-23

2024 PA Super 81

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOHN WILLIAMS

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2725 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 26, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Criminal Division at No: MC-51-MD-0000041-2022

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2024

Appellant, John Williams, appeals a judgment of sentence entered by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court). At a 

preliminary hearing in the underlying matter to this contempt proceeding, 

Appellant formed his hand into the shape of a gun and pointed it at a testifying 

witness. The trial court moments later held a non-jury trial and found

Appellant guilty of direct criminal contempt (42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§4132(3)). Appellant now challenges his contempt conviction on the ground 

that the evidence was legally insufficient. We affirm.

On the day in question, Appellant had been charged with burglary and 

several related crimes. A preliminary hearing was being held to determine 

whether Appellant would be held for court on those charges. The 

Commonwealth presented the testimony of Donald Nugent, the son of the 

owners of the home that had been allegedly burglarized by Appellant. As 
J-A24005-23

- 2 -

Nugent was about to begin testifying, Appellant entered the courtroom

walking with a cane. Although Nugent and the trial court did not observe it, 

Appellant was seen directing one of his hands at Nugent while bent in the 

shape of a gun. After Nugent had finished testifying, the trial court ruled that 

the charged offenses would be held for court.

The trial court then held a summary contempt proceeding, explaining to 

Appellant that he had been observed making a threatening gesture toward a 

witness. Appellant attempted to explain that he was inexperienced in the 

criminal justice system, and that he had been “shocked” upon entering the 

courtroom, to the degree that he did not know where he was. He also claimed 

to have a “twitch” in his hand, which had caused his inadvertent gesture 

toward Nugent. See N.T. Trial, 9/26/2022, at 26.

The trial court determined that Appellant’s explanations lacked 

credibility. Finding that Appellant had committed the crime of contempt, the 

trial court sentenced him to 30 to 60 days of incarceration. A timely appeal 

was filed, and in his 1925(b) statement of errors, Appellant asserted the 

following basis for relief:

The evidence was insufficient to find Appellant guilty of summary 

contempt where no direct evidence of Appellant's contemptuous 

behavior was presented at the contempt hearing. Moreover, there 

was insufficient proof that Appellant had wrongful intent, the 

requisite mens rea to be guilty of criminal contempt. 

1925(b) Statement, 1/3/2023, at 2.

In Appellant’s brief, he now repeats his challenge to the sufficiency of 

the evidence as to the intent element of criminal contempt. Additionally, he 
J-A24005-23

- 3 -

argues for the first time that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish 

that “his conduct obstructed the administration of justice.” Appellant’s Brief, 

at 3. 

“When reviewing a contempt conviction, much reliance is given to the 

discretion of the trial judge.” Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174, 

1176-77 (Pa. Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 

937, 939 (Pa. Super. 2002)). This Court’s review is “confined to a 

determination of whether the facts support the trial court’s decision.” Id.

(quoting Kolansky, 800 A.2d at 939). Reversal of a finding of contempt is 

permissible only to correct an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Id.

“Direct criminal contempt consists of misconduct in the presence of the 

court or misconduct so near thereto as to interfere with the immediate 

business of the court or disobedience to the lawful process of the court.” In 

re Campolongo, 435 A.2d 581, 583 n.4 (Pa. 1981). The offense of direct

contempt has four elements which must be proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt: “(1) misconduct, (2) in the presence of the court, (3) committed with 

the intent to obstruct the proceedings, (4) which obstructs the administration 

of justice.” Commonwealth v. Moody, 125 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015). 

“[A] subjective intent to obstruct the administration of justice is not a 

requisite element of criminal contempt.” Commonwealth v. Owens, 436 

A.2d 129, 133 (Pa. 1981). Rather, wrongful intent will be found when the 

contemnor “knows or should reasonably be aware that his conduct is 

wrongful.” Commonwealth v. Garrison, 386 A.2d 971, 978 (Pa. 1978). “In 
J-A24005-23

- 4 -

determining an offender’s mental state, a court looks to his conduct and the 

surrounding circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Falana, 696 A.2d 126, 129 

(Pa. 1997).

The element of obstructing the administration of justice does not 

necessarily entail a delay to a court’s proceedings. Even threats made toward 

a victim at the conclusion of a case, and outside the physical presence of the 

court, may amount to obstruction because witness intimidation “would clearly 

obstruct the efficient administration of justice and demean the court’s 

authority.” Falana, 696 A.2d at 129; see also Commonwealth v. Outlaw, 

306 A.3d 406 (Pa. Super. 2023) (affirming contempt conviction where 

defendant had uttered profanity to the trial judge in open court, brazenly 

demonstrating disrespect for the court’s authority).

In the present case, Appellant asserts that the evidence of contempt

was legally insufficient. First, he argues that the record contains no evidence 

of intent behind his hand gesture. Second, he argues that there was no 

evidence that his gesture disrupted the administration of justice. We find 

neither of these grounds to be availing.

The record objectively shows that Appellant’s hand had formed the 

shape of a gun toward an adverse witness who was testifying against him at 

trial. At the trial on the contempt charge, Appellant admitted that this 

occurred, and that such conduct is wrongful. See N.T. Trial, 9/26/2022, at 

26-27.
J-A24005-23

- 5 -

Crucially, Appellant’s defense was that his hand would involuntarily 

clench and shake in such a way as to form the shape of a gun. He claimed 

that he had a “twitch” in his hand that had been mistaken for a deliberate 

threat. This supposed twitch even was demonstrated to the trial court during 

the contempt proceedings. Moreover, Appellant claimed he took no

precautions against offending anyone with his inadvertent conduct because he 

had not realized that he had entered a courtroom. See id., at 25-26.

These attempts to refute the intent element of criminal contempt put 

Appellant’s credibility directly at issue. It was therefore appropriate for the 

trial court to consider whether Appellant was credible in stating (a) that he did 

not know he was in a courtroom, and (b) that he could not control a “twitch” 

that caused his hand to clench in the shape of a gun.

As to Appellant’s awareness of his surroundings, the evidence showed 

that he had an extensive history in the criminal justice system, resulting in 

five prior convictions and even more arrests. The trial court found Appellant 

was clearly untruthful in stating that was unfamiliar with the appearance of a 

courtroom, and that he did not know where he was when the subject conduct 

occurred. See id., at 28-29.

As to the voluntariness of Appellant’s threatening hand gesture, the trial 

court was able to observe him at length at both the preliminary hearing and 

the contempt proceedings. The record supports the trial court’s observation

that Appellant’s hands would remain steady at all times “except for when you 
J-A24005-23

- 6 -

want them not to be.” Id., at 33. Thus, Appellant’s explanations for his

conduct were not credible, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

inferring that Appellant had the requisite intent to threaten the 

Commonwealth’s witness. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Cannady, 590 A.2d 

356, 358 (Pa. Super. 1991) (“[A] person is presumed to intend the natural 

consequences of his act.”). 

Turning to Appellant’s sufficiency challenge as to whether the 

administration of justice was obstructed, we note at the outset that this claim 

is not preserved for appellate review. The issue was not raised before the trial 

court, and it was likewise omitted from Appellant’s 1925(b) statement, 

resulting in a waiver of the claim and precluding consideration of its merits. 

See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005).

Regardless, even if the claim were preserved, we would find that the 

record contains sufficient evidence to establish the obstruction element. A 

party’s misconduct amounts to an obstruction of the administration of justice 

where it causes “actual, imminent prejudice to a fair proceeding or prejudice 

to the preservation of the court's orderly procedure and authority.” 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 753 A.2d 856, 863 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

Allowing a criminal defendant “to use the courtroom to intimidate his victim,

and thereby possibly deter others from testifying in the future, would clearly 

obstruct the efficient administration of justice and demean the court’s 

authority.” Commonwealth v. Falana, 696 A.2d 126, 129 (Pa. 1996).
J-A24005-23

- 7 -

Here, even if Appellant’s conduct was not directly observed by the trial 

court or victim, and did not result in any delays, he still caused an obstruction. 

See id. Appellant threatened a witness who was testifying in open court, 

resulting in actual, imminent prejudice to the fairness of the proceeding, as 

well as to the court’s orderly procedure and authority. See Williams, 753 

A.2d at 863. Thus, the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain Appellant’s 

contempt conviction, and the judgment of sentence must stand.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Date: 4/23/2024