Court Opinion

ID: 9711079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:24:06.607242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.098948
License: Public Domain

*6ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the plurality that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, with intent to obstruct the proceedings, engaged in misconduct in the presence of the court which obstructed the administration of justice, and therefore was subject to punishment under subsection III of the Act of June 16,1836, P.L. 784, § 23,17 P.S. § 2041 (1962). In re Johnson, 467 Pa. 552, 359 A.2d 739 (1976). Because subsection III provides a sufficient basis for affirming the order of the trial court, I find it unnecessary to determine, as does the plurality whether appellant’s conduct constituted contempt under subsection II.
Moreover, one accused of contempt is entitled to notice of the offense charged. Appeal of Sagel, 478 Pa. 356, 386 A.2d 971 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mayberry, 459 Pa. 91, 327 A.2d 86 (1974); accord, Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974). Here, the court did not specify the statutory source of its authority to impose contempt, appellant apparently believed that he had been charged under subsection III and therefore in this appeal has argued only that provision, and the Commonwealth has not asserted that the trial court relied upon subsection II. In these circumstances, appellant has not received fair notice of any charge of contempt under subsection II. Appeal of Sagel, supra. Therefore, to affirm appellant’s conviction under subsection II would deny him due process of law.