Commonwealth v. Lambert
147 A.3d 1221
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff obtained a final Protection From Abuse (PFA) order on October 26, 2015, prohibiting Appellant Jack T. Lambert from having direct or indirect contact with her for three years and from posting any remarks or images regarding her on social networks.
- On October 27, 2015, Appellant posted multiple public Facebook messages about a recent breakup, criticizing the justice system, referencing "three years," using pet names and posting a shared-tattoo image; none named the Plaintiff explicitly.
- Plaintiff saw and saved the posts, felt threatened and fearful (citing Appellant’s prior mental-health incidents and past homicidal thoughts), and reported the posts to police.
- Appellant admitted some posts were about the Plaintiff, acknowledged the PFA prohibition, claimed he did not intend to violate it because he did not name her and believed he had blocked her.
- The trial court convicted Appellant of indirect criminal contempt for violating the PFA, sentenced him to 30 days’ incarceration plus five months’ consecutive probation, and Appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth proved wrongful intent for indirect criminal contempt | Posts targeted Plaintiff and caused her fear; temporal proximity and content support intent | No wrongful intent: posts unnamed, on his profile, not necessarily seen by Plaintiff, largely about someone else | Court affirmed conviction—intent can be inferred from context and substantial certainty of violation |
| Whether PFA prohibition on posting remarks/images "regarding" Plaintiff on social media violates free speech | Restriction is a contact-based, content-neutral regulation serving the substantial government interest of preventing abuse; narrowly tailored with alternative channels | Restriction is content-based, overbroad, vague, prior restraint, and not narrowly tailored | Court held the restriction is content-neutral (target-based), furthers an important interest unrelated to speech, and is narrowly tailored; constitutional challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (test for when regulation of nonexpressive conduct incidentally limits speech)
- Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (content-neutral speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored and leave open alternative channels)
- Golden Triangle News, Inc. v. Corbett, 689 A.2d 974 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997) (framework for evaluating content-neutral speech regulation)
- Commonwealth v. Kolansky, 800 A.2d 937 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate deference to trial court in contempt findings)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (elements to establish indirect criminal contempt)
- Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2008) (purpose of the PFA Act to prevent domestic abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (wrongful intent may be imputed by substantial certainty of violating a court order)
- In re Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 913 A.2d 178 (Pa. 2006) (First Amendment review principles and content-neutral balancing)