Court Opinion

ID: 9694413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:40:44.518498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:01.058618
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix:
In a well-reasoned opinion written by Mr. Justice Eagen, the majority properly concludes that the instant appellant was unjustly confined for contumacious conduct upon a record barren of evidence of willful misbehavior. I am in complete accord with the reasoning and result of the majority opinion but I strongly believe that some comment must be made as to the underlying factor that produced this result.
Mr. Wright appeared before the court below on May 28, 1971, under a writ of attachment pursuant to the Act of July 13, 1953, P. L. 431, §9; 1957, July 3, P. L. 452, §1, 62 P.S. 2043.39. An adjudication of contempt was found under subsection (b) after the following colloquy which represents the entire record of the proceeding resulting in the questioned confinement : “By The Court: Q. You are Fred Wright? A. Yes, sir. Q. Also known as Fred Gordy? A. Yes. Q. Do you live at 1433 North 10 Street? A. Yes. Q. You have three children with Beverly Thomas; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. There’s an order of $5.00 for each one of them. The total amount to be paid in is $4,195.00, and you paid in a grand total of $213.00. Your last payment was $20.00 in October 1965. You owe $3,982.-00 and you also owe $42.00 on the lying-in expenses. The mother of these three children is on relief, getting $211.50 twice a month. Why haven’t you paid the *42money? A. I have been away for awhile.1 The Court: $1,000 or six months in the House of Correction.”
I cannot conceive of a record that could be more illustrative of the potential injustice from the failure to provide the appellant with counsel. This was the type of charade of justice that caused concern to the United States Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932): “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no shill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect.” 287 U.S. at 68-69.
In Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), the Court made clear that the above cited language of Powell was not limited to matters involving capital offenses but rather “that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his *43trial.” Without attempting to determine whether the contempt power conferred under subsection (b) of the Act of July 13, 1953, supra, §9 is criminal or civil2 the proceeding may lead to the deprivation of substantial rights justifying the right to counsel even if it be determined that the contempt is civil. See In Re: Adoption of R.I., 455 Pa. 29, 312 A. 2d 601 (1973). Where one stands in jeopardy of the deprivation of his liberty, I can find no persuasive reason to allow his right to be furnished counsel if indigent to turn upon a highly sophisticated determination as to whether the proceeding is criminal or civil in nature.
1 therefore must conclude that Mr. Wright was entitled to relief both for the reason set forth by the majority and also for the failure to provide counsel or establish that there had been a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right.
Mr. Justice Roberts joins in this concurring opinion.

 This reference was to appellant’s incarceration for an unrelated offense.

 In Altemose Construction Co. v. Building & Construction Trades Council, 449 Pa. 194, 296 A.2d 504 (1972), we noted tile difficulty involved in the task of distinguishing between criminal and civil contempt particularly where the contemptuous conduct is the violation of a court order which was initiated at the behest of a private litigant. The accepted test appears to be that when the dominant purpose is to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court and to protect the interest of the general public, it is a proceeding for criminal contempt Knaus v. Knaus, 387 Pa. 370, 376; 127 A. 2d 669 (1956).