Court Opinion

ID: 9691825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:14:59.117686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:25.942717
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I. agree with the conclusion of the majority that the application of the statute to appellant did not violate his constitutional rights. Although the language of the Act is unduly broad, I think that the majority has construed the statute to fit within constitutional parameters.
In the charge to the jury the lower court required that in order to convict appellant the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the criminal intent to hinder or interfere with or endanger the firefighting personnel. Such criminal intent is a necessary element of the statute. The act of “interference” may not be simply inadvertent. The Commonwealth clearly presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find criminal intent and substantial interference with fire equipment.
In defining the act which the statute intended to prohibit, the majority notes that the policemen and firemen must be “in the performance of their duties”. I believe that this qualification is required in order that a defendant charged under the statute may not be convicted for failure to obey an illegal order from law enforcement personnel. Again, it was clearly established that the firefighters here were going about their duties, as they were only a few yards away from a burning store.
*79In summary, I read the majority opinion as requiring intentional and significant interference with law enforcement or firefighting personnel operating in the performance of their duties. Thus I join in that opinion.
Spaulding, J., joins in this concurring opinion.