In Re: Order Amedning Rules 140, 141 & 142 of PA Rules of Criminal Procedure
499 Criminal Procedural Rules Docket
| Pa. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- Rules 140–142 govern contempt proceedings before magisterial district judges and Pittsburgh Magistrates Court judges (terminology retained for statutory reasons) and implement 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 4137–4138 contempt powers.
- Two types of contempt: summary/direct contempt for misbehavior in the court’s presence (immediate punishment up to $100 and/or 30 days jail) and indirect/"criminal" contempt for failures to obey orders (proceedings by notice or warrant with fuller due‑process protections).
- For summary contempt the issuing authority must ordinarily give an opportunity to be heard, issue a written contempt order stating facts, certify personal observation of the conduct, and advise the contemnor of the 30‑day appeal right (automatic 30‑day stay) and counsel rights where imprisonment may follow.
- For indirect contempt, the issuing authority must serve written notice (or issue an attachment), provide specifics of the charge and penalties, advise of counsel and bench‑warrant risk, conduct an open‑court hearing, issue a written order if contempt is found, and allow the same 30‑day appeal with automatic stay if timely filed.
- Limits on punishment vary by offense (e.g., subpoena noncompliance: up to $100 fine or 10 days for nonpayment; failure to comply with installment payment orders: up to 90 days imprisonment; failure to compensate a victim: up to $100 and/or 30 days). Statutory caps previously found unconstitutional are addressed by case law.
- Rules set procedures for appeals (Rule 141): appeal perfected by filing notice within 30 days with the clerk of courts; clerk serves issuing authority; issuing authority must file transcript and papers; de novo hearing in court of common pleas; punishment stayed during appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to summarily punish for contempt in presence of court | Issuing authority may summarily impose limited punishment immediately to preserve order | Defendant argues need for procedural protections even for in‑court misconduct | Court permits summary punishment but requires opportunity to be heard, written order, and advisals (Rule 140(A)) |
| Due process and right to counsel in indirect contempt leading to imprisonment | Issuing authority may proceed by notice or warrant and impose punishment consistent with statutes and rules | Defendant contends full criminal due‑process protections (notice, counsel, hearing) apply before imprisonment | Indirect contempt requires notice, open‑court hearing, right to counsel for imprisonment, and written order; no imprisonment without counsel (Rule 140(B)) |
| Effect and timing of appeal and stays from contempt adjudications | Issuing authority relies on Rule’s 30‑day appeal mechanism and automatic stay provision | Defendant emphasizes preservation of stay pending appeal and right to de novo review in common pleas | Appeal must be filed within 30 days; punishment automatically stayed 30 days and remains stayed if appeal timely filed; de novo hearing in court of common pleas (Rule 141) |
| Procedures for defaults on contempt fines and nonpayment imprisonment | Issuing authority may pursue bench warrant and imprisonment after default and hearing on ability to pay | Defendant argues ability to pay must be determined before imprisonment; right to appeal default determination | Rule 142 requires notice of default, 10‑day cure/appearance, hearing on ability to pay; imprisonment only if able to pay; installment schedule if not; 30‑day appeal available |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McMullen, 961 A.2d 842 (Pa. 2008) (legislative limits on contempt sentencing are unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 393 A.2d 386 (Pa. 1978) (summary contempt may be imposed with an opportunity to be heard)
- Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974) (requirements of due process in contempt proceedings)
- Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1968) (right to counsel in serious criminal proceedings)
- Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (U.S. 2002) (imprisonment cannot be imposed absent right to counsel)
- Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1979) (right to counsel tied to actual imprisonment)
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1972) (right to counsel when imprisonment is imposed)
- Commonwealth v. Abrams, 336 A.2d 308 (Pa. 1975) (right to counsel applies in criminal contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 352 A.2d 52 (Pa. 1976) (counsel in contempt cases required)