Court Opinion

ID: 9695553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:22:25.087877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:39.478621
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I would find that Appellant’s failure to abide by the court’s clear and specific policy requiring communication between parties constituted intentional neglect as contemplated under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4132. Appellant knew that disposition of the Pruitt case was contingent upon receiving the notes of testimony, the lack of which had, up to that time, already caused approximately one month’s delay. At stake was the court’s legitimate interest in administering justice through the efficient operation of the court calendar. Thus, it can be inferred that Appellant’s decision to forego his obligation to so notify the District Attorney’s office of the notes was both intentional and one that he should reasonably have understood to be wrongful. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Majority’s finding of no contempt and would, assuming arguendo the deprivation of Appellant’s due process rights, remand for a formal hearing on the issue.