Com. v. W.A.H., III, Com. v. W.A.H., III No. 1516 MDA 2016

Wife filed for a temporary Protection From Abuse (PFA) order on Jan 14, 2015; a temporary PFA prohibiting contact with her and the children was entered Jan 15, 2015.
Fifteen days later Appellant mailed an envelope addressed to his wife’s aunt with "attention to" the parties’ daughter, containing a 2.5-page handwritten letter criticizing the wife and expressing love for the children and wife.
The aunt opened the envelope, read the letter, and prevented the child from reading it; both the envelope and letter were admitted into evidence.
Trial court found Appellant in indirect criminal contempt for violating the temporary PFA (contact/harassment via third persons); sentencing occurred July 14, 2016 (fine and time served).
Appellant challenged only the mens rea element on appeal, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove he intended to communicate with the protected person through the letter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (W.A.H.)	Held
Whether evidence proved wrongful intent for indirect criminal contempt by communicating about/through a third party in violation of a temporary PFA	The letter was sent deliberately 15 days after the no-contact order, addressed to the child at a third party’s home, contained direct references to the protected person, and there was substantial certainty it would be read — proof of wrongful intent	Appellant argued the Commonwealth did not prove he intended to communicate with the protected person via the letter (insufficient mens rea)	Affirmed: court found wrongful intent established; sending the letter to the child/third party shortly after the PFA showed a volitional act with intent to circumvent the no-contact order

Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard for reviewing contempt convictions)
Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sufficiency-of-evidence test and proof of elements for criminal convictions)
Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. 2012) (elements required to prove indirect criminal contempt)