Court Opinion

ID: 9731260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:40:35.932069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:16.613601
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice.
Petitioner Judicial Inquiry and Review Board (JIRB) has filed a Petition To Implement Automatic Forfeiture Of Judicial Office, requesting that Respondent District Justice Wallace S. Scott be declared automatically removed from his judicial office as of January 29, 1990 and thereafter be *208ineligible for judicial office. Respondent sought an extension of time to respond to the petition. The request was denied by per curiam order of this Court dated September 14, 1990.
The record in this case consists of the JIRB’s petition, which includes a certified copy of the criminal information setting forth the charges made against the Respondent and certified copies of the sentencing orders entered on January 29, 1990, and the Respondent’s petition for an extension of time. The JIRB has alleged, and the sentencing orders indicate as well, that the Respondent was convicted of hindering apprehension or prosecution, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105(a)(3), and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101. The only description of the conduct giving rise to the criminal charges is contained in the information of the Berks County District Attorney’s office.
With respect to the charges for which Respondent was sentenced, the information states that on or about March 13, 1988 to October 25, 1988, the Respondent “... did with intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for crime, conceal or destroy evidence of a crime or tampered with a witness, informant, document or other source of information ...”, and “... did intentionally obstruct impair or pervert the administration of law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty....” No more detail of the Respondent’s conduct than that contained in the information has been advanced by the JIRB’s petition.
The JIRB has alleged that by virtue of the two convictions, the Respondent is subject to automatic forfeiture of his judicial office pursuant to Article V, Section 18(i) of the Pennsylvania Constitution because he was convicted of “misbehavior in office by a court.” The term “misbehavior in office by a court” appears in Article V, Section 18(i) which provides:
*209A justice, judge or justice of the peace convicted of misbehavior in office by a court, disbarred as a member of the bar of the Supreme Court or removed under this section eighteen shall forfeit automatically his judicial office and thereafter be ineligible for judicial office.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 18, the task of finally determining whether a justice of the peace should be disciplined and, if so, the extent of the discipline and its consequences has been entrusted to this Court. Judicial Inquiry and Review Board v. Snyder, 514 Pa. 142, 523 A.2d 294 (1987). Therefore, we must examine the record to determine whether suspension, removal, discipline, or compulsory retirement is warranted.
At the outset, we must clarify the misconception that may arise from the allegation of the JIRB that automatic forfeiture of office has occurred because the Respondent has been convicted of “misbehavior in office by a court”. “Misbehavior in office” is not a temporal concept. “Misbehavior in office” is a separate ground for forfeiture that was intended to encompass only those convictions for crimes involving misuse of the judicial office.
The sparse record presented to this Court is inadequate to sustain a determination that the Respondent has been convicted of “misbehavior in office by a court.” We do find, however, that the record demonstrates that the convictions of the Respondent warrant the serious sanction of removal as of January 29, 1990 and that the Respondent be declared ineligible hereafter for judicial office. It is so ordered.
LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
NIX, C.J., files a concurring opinion.
FLAHERTY and PAPADAKOS, JJ., file a concurring opinion.