Com. v. Risoldi, C., Com. v. Risoldi, C. No. 1864 EDA 2016

In October 2013 a house fire led to an AG grand jury investigation into possible witness intimidation involving Claire Risoldi and others; the AG presented evidence leading to witness-intimidation presentments and criminal proceedings.
Judge Gavin repeatedly admonished Risoldi in open court that any contact with witnesses (broadly defined) would result in contempt proceedings and possible jail; Risoldi and her counsel were present and acknowledged the directive.
Despite the admonition, Risoldi personally caused subpoenas to be served in April 2016 on multiple entities and individuals connected to the prosecution and related investigations (police, fire companies, AIG, OAG prosecutors, records custodians).
The AG moved to hold Risoldi in indirect criminal contempt for violating the court’s no-contact directive; a contempt hearing was held June 10, 2016.
The trial court found Risoldi guilty of indirect criminal contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132 and sentenced her to 30 days’ incarceration; Risoldi appealed, arguing insufficient evidence as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain indirect criminal contempt for contacting witnesses/issuing subpoenas	Risoldi violated a clear, specific court order prohibiting any contact with witnesses; serving subpoenas was a volitional act done with wrongful intent/reckless disregard	Risoldi never contacted prohibited witnesses; subpoenas were legitimate and not shown to be in bad faith; evidence insufficient as a matter of law	Affirmed: evidence sufficient. Order was clear, Risoldi had notice, acted volitionally, and acted with at least reckless disregard of the court’s directive

Commonwealth v. Pettyjohn, 64 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Ashton, 824 A.2d 1198 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition and proof requirements for indirect criminal contempt)
Commonwealth v. Debose, 833 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2003) (minimum intent for criminal contempt: volitional act by one who knows or should reasonably be aware conduct is wrongful; reckless disregard suffices)
Commonwealth v. Padilla, 885 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate review of trial court contempt findings; abuse of discretion standard)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 622 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. 1993) (notice requirement for contempt based on specific court order)
Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131 (1965) (due process considerations regarding subpoenas)
In re Zalkind, 872 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (civil contempt/subpoena legitimacy context)