Court Opinion

ID: 9757529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:44:54.663555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:40.613036
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Spaulding, J.:
No. 21 — Convictions for Criminal Libel
I.
This case is the first instance in which we have been required to decide appeals from convictions for violations of our criminal libel and anonymous communications statutes1 since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Armao, 446 Pa. 325, 286 A. 2d 626 (1972). That decision held the criminal libel statutes to be of no further effect and unconstitutional, under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment. I disagree with the majority that since “that opinion [Armao] was by less than a majority of seven justices, comprising a full court, . . . stare decisis does not bind us, particularly since important public interests are affected by its declaration of unconstitutionality.” The position of our *462Court in Pennsylvania’s unified judiciary, the orderly administration of justice and the necessity for greater foreseeability and certainty in the law compel the opposite result, particularly since the constitutionality of a state statute is involved.
As an intermediate appellate court, our decisions are circumscribed by the law of Pennsylvania as established by the precedents of our Supreme Court. Were we to vary from their holdings and strike out on our own in deciding cases before us involving the same questions of law which our Supreme Court has already decided, that Court would be forced to review our decisions in every such case merely to enforce decisions already handed down. This would totally destroy the effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s tripartite appellate court system, in direct derogation of the legislative intent in the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 673, art. I, §§101 et seq., 17 P.S. §§211.101 et seq. We cannot allow the destruction of store decisis in this Commonwealth and the uncertainty of the law which would accompany it.
The majority summarily deals with this issue in the text of their opinion. Their reasoning is enunciated in footnotes 1 and 2, thereof, and relies on a decision which is, on closer examination, distinguishable from the instant case. The Pennsylvania case on which the majority relies, for the proposition that certain opinions of our Supreme Court are not decisional, is Commonwealth v. Silverman, 442 Pa. 211, 218, 275 A. 2d 308, 312 (1971). It held that Commonwealth, v. Hosendorf, 437 Pa. 219, 263 A. 2d 439 (1970), was not decisional since the recorded opinion only expressed the views of three of the seven justices who heard that case, which was not a majority of the Court (three justices joined in the opinion, two concurred in the result, and two dissented). However, as the majority here notes *463(at n.l, supra), there is a distinction between the precedential value of Armao and Hosendorf. In Armao a majority of the participating justices did join in the views expressed by the opinion. Silverman, supra, while holding that an opinion is not decisional if it does not express the views of “a majority of the Court”, does not indicate that an opinion is only decisional if an absolute majority of the full court joins in it. I would hold that any opinion joined in by a majority of the Supreme Court justices who heard the case binds us.
Armao, by its declaration of unconstitutionality, affected important public interests and should remain the law of Pennsylvania until such time as the Supreme Court “is properly called upon to re-examine the questions involved, and again subject them to judicial scrutiny”. Majority opinion, at n.2, citing Commonwealth ex rel. Margiotti v. Lamrenee, 326 Pa. 526, 530, 193 A. 46 (1937). Once the Supreme Court has spoken, the citizens and bar of our Commonwealth are entitled to rely on its decisions until that Court reconsiders its determination, affecting the public or private rights involved.2
II.
Assuming arguendo that the majority’s view, holding the decision in Armao not binding, is correct, I still must respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with their substantive holding that our criminal libel statutes, as *464presently drawn, withstand constitutional attack. Both their opinion and Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Armao carefully review the relevant federal decisions applying the First Amendment to civil libel cases, from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), to Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (1971) .3 To avoid unnecessary repetition, I shall not undertake such a review here, but note in passing that the general review of this line of cases by the Supreme Court in Armao seems most persuasive in support of the position.
The Act of April 11,1901, P. L. 74, §1, 19 P.S. §801, (with which the Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §412, 18 P.S. §4412 must be read) ,4 and on which the instant conviction was based, provides that: “In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, no conviction shall be allowed if the subject matter of the publication, whether contained in newspapers or otherwise, relates to candidates for public office or the official conduct of public officers, and is found to the satisfaction of the jury to be proper for public information or investigation and not to have been maliciously or negligently made. In all such cases the truth may be given in evidence to the jury.” [Emphasis added.] Both the Armao Court and the majority in the instant case agree that to the extent that this statute permits a conviction based on negligence, giving no recognition to the “reckless disregard” of truth and “knowing falsity” standard mandated by New York Times, supra, and Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), and extended to public officers or candidates by Rosenbloom, supra, it is constitutionally infirm. Both opinions also indicate *465that to the extent that the act makes no provision for truth being an absolute defense and thereby prevents such a defense, it further fails to pass constitutional muster. In reaching these conclusions, the two opinions rely heavily on and quote liberally from Garrison5 supra, which “held that a Louisiana criminal libel statute incorporated constitutionally invalid standards in the context of criticism of public officials in that it directed punishment for true statements made with malice. The statute [there] was also infirm because it attached adverse consequences to false statements against public officials if made with ill will without regard to whether they were made with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.” Armao, supra, at 334.
Where my view conflicts with that of the majority is over the application of the above principles to the statute. The majority premises its reasoning on the trial judge’s charge to the jury in which he attempted to mold the statute to meet the constitutional requirements. He charged that there could be no finding of guilt unless the jury found both malice and untruthfulness were present. The majority supports this modification of the act, allowing truth as an absolute defense and eliminating negligently made statements from its proscriptions. They hold that “this Court should not *466take it upon itself to eliminate the crime of libel whatever may be the predilections of its members”. They therefore allow the severance of the unconstitutional provisions of the act.
I cannot agree. The more persuasive view is propounded. by the Armao opinion in rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument there, that the unconstitutional sections of the act are severable. The Court reasoned as follows: “The Commonwealth urges us to in effect re-draft the criminal libel statutes in accordance with First Amendment requirements. To accede to this request would be to undertake a wholly inappropriate judicial activity amounting to judicial legislation. See State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Life Fellowship of Pennsylvania, 441 Pa. 293, 300, 272 A. 2d 478, 482 (1971); Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 413 Pa. 316, 320, 196 A. 2d 664, 667 (1964). Nor can we perceive any possible means of merely severing out the invalid portions of the statutes, for not only must the legislative body have intended the statute or section to be severable, but also the act must be capable of separation in fact. See Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co., supra, at 320-21, 196 A. 2d at 666-67.” 446 Pa. 338. I concur with this reasoning. The unconstitutional provisions on the face of the act were neither intended to be, nor are they capable of being severed, without causing a complete transformation of the conduct which is legislatively proscribed.
Alteration of the last sentence of the Act of April 11, 1901, P. L. 74, §1 (italicized above), especially, to provide that truth is an absolute defense, would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. The clause reading “truth may be given in evidence to the jury” was apparently intended to recodify the identical language of the prior Pennsylvania statute, Act of July 1, 1897, P. L. 204, as interpreted by case law, which held *467that truth is not an absolute defense. Commonwealth v. Swallow, 8 Pa. Superior Ct. 539, 605 (1898); see Commonwealth v. Scouton, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 503 (1902); see also Respublica v. Dennie, 4 Yeates 267 (1805). Swallow was decided three years prior to the passage of the act and put the legislature on notice that the [same] language in the prior statute meant that: “The truth is not to be distorted in order to furnish a basis for denunciation or invective.” 8 Pa. Superior Ct. at 605. Repassage of the same wording seems to imply approval of this holding.
Finally, the majority’s interpretation of the statute seems contrary to the requirements of the Statutory Construction Act, Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, art. I, §§1 et seq., 46 P.S. §§501 et seq. The rule promulgated by 46 P.S. §551 thereof is applicable here: “When the words of a law are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded. . . .” Our case law is in accord: “When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, . . .; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning . . .: 25 R.C.L., Sec. 217, p. 961.” Commonwealth ex rel. Cartwright v. Cartwright, 350 Pa. 638, 645, 40 A. 2d 30 (1944); cited with approval in Davis v. Sulcowe, 416 Pa. 138, 205 A. 2d 89 (1964), and Pgh. Beer Corp. Liquor License Case, 216 Pa. Superior Ct. 71, 260 A. 2d 493 (1969). Even if the statute is determined not to be plain and unambiguous, which in my view it is, it still cannot be modified in the manner in which the majority indicates. As the Supreme Court indicated in Rossiter v. Whitpain Twp., 404 Pa. 201, 205, 170 A. 2d 586 (1961): “A court does not have the power to alter an act under the guise of construing it, nor can we read into it an intention that is just not there, nor can we add words to a statute where it is clear that they were intentionally omitted. See Calvert *468Dist. Corp. v. Bd. of Finance & Rev., 376 Pa. 476, 103 A. 2d 668 (1954); Commonwealth ex rel. Cartwright v. Cartwright, 350 Pa. 638, 40 A. 2d 30 (1944); Panik v. Didra, 370 Pa. 488, 88 A. 2d 730 (1952).”
I would reverse the judgment of sentence at No. 21.
No. 22 — Convictions For Anonymous Communications
I concur in reversing the judgment of sentence at No. 22. I would, however, reach the constitutionality of the anonymous communications statute, Act of June 24,1939, P. L. 872, §414, 18 P.S. §4414,6 which provides that the sending of any anonymous communication which is “either libelous, defamatory, scurrilous, or opprobrious” is a misdemeanor. For the same reasons enunciated above as to the criminal libel acts, I would declare this statute to be of no further effect and unconstitutional, as violative of First Amendment rights. “The statutory language makes no provision for truth being an absolute defense. Likewise, no recognition is given the reckless disregard and knowing falsity standard mandated by New York Times and Garrison.” Armao, supra, at 337. Further, the First Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court forbids the imposition of criminal penalties for statements which are merely defamatory, scurrilous, or opprobrious. These standards are too vague to meet constitutional requirements and also fail to require a consideration of the intent with which such statements were made.
Hoffman, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

 The statutes are set out in fuU in the majority’s opinion, at n.3, 4 (criminal libel), and 8 (anonymous communications). While I do not specifically deal with the constitutional challenge to Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, I concur with the Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Armao, 446 Pa. 325, 338, 286 A. 2d 626 (1972), that the last sentence thereof is unconstitutional, but may be severed from the first portion of the section dealing with freedom of the press generally. See Armao, at n.3 for the text of that sentence.

 The legislature has determined that only four justices, i.e.— “a majority” of the seven, “shall have power to hold the said [Supreme] court.” Act of April 14, 1834, P. D. 333, §2, 17 P.S. §10. This implies the majority of as few as four justices may decide any ease. While the reference is not to stare decisis, the legislative intent seems to lend some support to the position that a majority of the justices who sit to hear any case can decide Pennsylvania Daw.

 See Armao, at n.4, which lists the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in libel cases from New York Times to Rosenbloom.

 See n.l, supra.

 The majority incorrectly staes that Garrison is the only recent criminal libel case decided by the Supreme Court, overlooking Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195 (1966), which, although not dealing with a state statute, did hold that the Kentucky courts’ application of the common-law crime of libel was unconstitutional. This holding was based on the fact that the elements of the crime were so indefinite and uncertain as to make it inconsistent with constitutional provisions, despite the fact that, as here, the trial court charged that “malice is ‘an essential element of this offense’ and falsity as well.” 384 U.S. at 198. Compare this holding with the majority’s view that our admittedly unconstitutional statute may be redeemed by such a charge.

 See n.l, supra.