Commonwealth v. Moody, 46 A.3d 765

Appellants Moody, Ivery, and Archie were found in direct criminal contempt by the Philadelphia Municipal Court on May 6, 2011.
Incident occurred April 6, 2011 during a preliminary hearing in a double homicide case; Archie allegedly incited others in the gallery to assault the defendant’s mother, prompting the defendant to react.
The court halted proceedings, removed the Appellants for three hours, then held a purported summary contempt hearing with the court crier as a witness and without the judge being sworn.
Appellants were not represented by counsel, could not speak for themselves, and could not cross-examine the judge or crier; a sidebar, unrecorded, occurred.
A counsel-led proceeding followed about a week later as a sentencing hearing; the court granted limited relief and kept the original contempt conviction intact, with subsequent sentencing adjustments on May 6, 2011.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the judgments, holding the contempt proceedings violated due process and remanded for a proper adversarial contempt hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contempt proceeding conducted with due process protections?	Moody argues the hearing denied counsel, defense, and cross-examination.	The Commonwealth contends the proceeding was properly conducted as a summary contempt hearing.	Due process violated; remand for a full adversarial contempt hearing.
Was the evidence sufficient to identify Appellants and their contumacious acts?	Appellants contend identities and acts were not properly established.	Record contained some evidence linking them to the acts.	Evidence sufficient to support a reasonable finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but due process defects mandate remand.
Was the hearing properly classified as summary contempt, and were the procedural safeguards appropriate?	The hearing failed to meet summary-contest requirements and due process.	Judicial discretion supported a summary approach under the circumstances.	Hearing was not a proper summary contempt proceeding; violated due process; remand for adversarial hearing.

Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 482 Pa. 76, 393 A.2d 386 (Pa. 1978) (abuse-of-discretion standard for contempt; summary procedures limited)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499 (U.S. 1948) (due process requires notice and opportunity to defend in contempt)
Edwards, 703 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1997) (narrow exception to due process when conduct observed in presence of judge)
Crawford, 466 Pa. 269, 352 A.2d 52 (Pa. 1976) (silence or refusal to testify may be observed in open court; direct contempt limits)
Ferrara, 487 Pa. 392, 409 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1979) (appellants can be held in direct contempt if willfully not appear; direct observation by judge)