Shaner, W. v. Harriman, C.
189 A.3d 1088
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Harriman was subject to a final PFA (May 31, 2016) prohibiting him from possessing, transferring, or acquiring firearms for two years; he previously signed a form certifying he did not “possess or have access to any firearms.”
- In June 2017 deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, investigated and found an unloaded .22 rifle hanging in a partially open “pole shed” on neighboring property owned by Harriman’s grandmother‑in‑law.
- Harriman acknowledged he had stored equipment in the shed previously but testified the rifle was not his and he did not know it was there; the shed owner also denied ownership of the rifle and testified Harriman had been told to stay off her property in June 2016.
- Harriman was arrested and convicted by the trial court of indirect criminal contempt for “having access” to the rifle in violation of the PFA; he was fined $300 plus costs.
- The trial court focused on the concept of “access” and held Harriman had a duty to ensure he had no access to firearms, treating his failure to remove the gun as the volitional act constituting contempt.
- The Superior Court panel reversed, holding the Commonwealth failed to prove the required wrongful intent and failed to prove Harriman had (constructive) possession of the rifle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harriman could be convicted of indirect criminal contempt for “having access” to a rifle without an explicit finding of wrongful intent | Commonwealth argued that Harriman’s admitted use of the shed and prior certification he would not have access to firearms supported an inference of access/constructive possession and thus contempt | Harriman argued he neither owned nor knew about the rifle, did not possess or control it, and the Commonwealth failed to prove volition plus the requisite wrongful intent | Court held conviction cannot stand: Commonwealth failed to prove wrongful intent or constructive possession; reversal and vacation of contempt judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Felder, 176 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review of contempt convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Brumbaugh, 932 A.2d 108 (Pa. Super. 2007) (wrongful intent for contempt may be imputed where violation is substantially certain)
- Commonwealth v. McClellan, 178 A.3d 874 (Pa. Super. 2018) (constructive possession requires power to control contraband and intent to exercise that control)
- Commonwealth v. Valette, 613 A.2d 548 (Pa. 1992) (describing concept of constructive possession and that knowledge/intent may be inferred from circumstances)