366 A.2d 293 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1976
Lead Opinion
On April 25, 1975, appellant Dwayne Cooper was adjudged in contempt by the Court of Common Pleas of
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
This appeal presents the question whether a contemnor must be informed of the nature of the proceedings at the beginning of a contempt hearing.
On April 2, 1975, the Phoenix Glass Company filed a civil action in equity seeking to restrain acts of unlawful picketing by District 20 of the United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 8381, pursuant to the Act of 1937, P.L. 1198, § 4, 1939, June 9, P.L. 302, § 1, 43 P.S. § 206d. The court held a hearing that same day with all parties present, including the appellant, Dwayne Cooper, who was the union’s staff representative. On April 3, 1975, the court issued an order enjoining the defendant union from interfering with ingress and egress of vehicles and persons at entrances to appellee’s plant, limiting the number of pickets to six persons spaced not less than 18 feet apart, and enjoining the appellee from interfering with otherwise lawful picketing.
I Mootness
The Majority holds that because appellant has paid his fine, he has purged himself of contempt, and the appeal
“At the threshold of these appeals we are met by appellees’ argument that the appellants have purged themselves of contempt and that the appeals must therefore be dismissed as moot. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Reap’s Appeal, 88 Pa.Super. 147 (1926) where one adjudged in contempt of court and fined was held to have no right of appeal after paying the fine and purging himself of the contempt. See also Com. ex rel. Wilhelm v. Weigley, 83 Pa.Super. 189 (1924). The appellant in Reap’s Appeal contended, as did these appellants at oral argument, that the payment was not voluntary, but made under unlawful duress of his person or property. The Superior Court in Reap held that the duress argument could prevail only where there had been ‘usurpation of power not conferred, not through the irregular exercise of a jurisdiction possessed’ 88 Pa.Super. at 150. See Cunningham v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. 78 (1870). There is no doubt that the court below was possessed of both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, and there was certainly no intentional ‘usurpation of a power not conferred’. We have concluded, however, that the irregularities which characterized the proceeding were sufficiently serious so that the case is analogous to one where there is no power to act. ... So here, if the fines for contempt were under the circumstances beyond the authority of the court to impose, their payment must be considered as having been made under duress, to avoid imprisonment at least over night, and not with the intention of purging the payors of contempt. Since, as will appear, we find that appellants were not afforded their due process rights, the court was acting without authority in im
II Deprivation of Due Process
Our courts have often been required to distinguish the types of contempts, and we have held: “There are three types of contempt: (1) Direct criminal contempt, (2) indirect criminal contempt, and (3) civil contempt. They differ with respect to their nature, the procedure to be followed, and the penalty which may be imposed. Direct criminal contempt is readily recognized because it occurs in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere with its immediate business; and punishment may be summarily imposed. See Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, §§ 23, 24, 17 P.S. §§ 2041, 2042. Indirect criminal contempt (Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 925, §§ 1, 2, 17 P.S. §§ 2047, 2048) and civil contempt, however, are often difficult to distinguish. The misconduct giving rise to both occurs elsewhere than in the presence of the court, and consists of the violation of an order or decree of the court. For example, the violation of an injunction has been held to be a civil contempt (Knaus v. Knaus, 387 Pa. 370, 378, 127 A.2d 669) and an indirect criminal contempt (Milk Control Commission v. McAllister Dairy Farms, Inc., 384 Pa. 459, 121 A.2d 144).” Casco Products Company v. Hess Bros., 184 Pa.Super. 47, 51, 132 A.2d 922, 924 (1957). See also Riccobene Appeal, 439 Pa. 404, 424, 268 A.2d 104, 115 (1970).
Our Supreme Court established certain tests to assist in determining the “dominant purpose” of a contempt proceeding in Knaus v. Knaus, supra 387 Pa. at 378, 127 A.2d at 673: “The factors generally said to point to a civil contempt are these: (1) Where the complainant is a private person as opposed to the government or a governmental agency; (2) where the proceeding is entitled in the original injunction action and filed as a continuation
In addition to the presence or absence of the indicia of “dominant purpose”, civil and criminal contempts are distinguishable procedurally. As previously stated, direct criminal contempt may be punished by the court summarily under the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, § 23. See Levine Contempt Case, 372 Pa. 612, 95 A.2d 222 (1953); Snyder’s Case, 301 Pa. 276, 152 A. 33 (1930). The procedural safeguards required in cases of indirect criminal contempt are set forth in the Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 925, 17 P.S. §§ 2047, 2048, and include: the right to bail, the right to be notified of the accusation and a reasonable time to make a defense, the right to a speedy, public trial by jury if demanded, and the right to demand the retirement of the judge under certain circumstances.
The objectives and procedures which differentiate the three kinds of contempts are reflected in the distinctive punitive features of each. If the contempt is criminal, the court may impose a fine and/or imprisonment. Under the Act of 1931, the punishment for indirect criminal contempt is limited to a maximum fine of $100, or imprisonment for 15 days, or both. By contrast, “[t]he primary objective or purpose of punishment for civil contempt is to coerce the defendant into compliance with the decree of the court and thereby provide the remedy ordered for the benefit of the plaintiff. Every order which imposes punishment for civil contempt should state the condition which upon fulfilment will result in the release of the defendant or the remission of the fine.” Knaus v. Knaus, supra 387 Pa. at 379, 127 A.2d at 673. “If imprisoned, as aptly said in In re Nevitt, 8 Cir., 117 F. 451, ‘he carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.’ He can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.” Knaus v. Knaus, supra at 379, 127 A.2d at 673, quoting Gompers v. Bucks Stove and Range Company, 221 U.S. 418, 442, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). In addition to coercing the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, punishment in civil contempt may also take the form of damages to the plaintiff to compensate the complainant for losses. Brocker v. Brocker, supra; Knaus v. Knaus, supra. Thus a “fine” may either be payable to the complainant as damages or may be paid to the court with remission to the defendant conditioned on compliance with the court’s order. Brocker v. Brocker, supra. An unconditional fine, however, payable to the
In the instant case, aspects of both indirect criminal contempt and civil contempt were present. Applying the tests enunciated in Knaus, it would appear that the “dominant purpose” of the contempt proceedings was the protection of private rights: the complainant was a private individual, the proceeding was encaptioned with the original injunction action and was a continuation thereof as opposed to a separate and independent action, and the relief requested was primarily for the benefit of the appellee, a private party. Although the defendant’s conduct could have been characterized as criminal, it was not so contumelious that the court would be “impelled to act on its own motion”. Thus, the “dominant purpose” would probably indicate a civil rather than criminal contempt proceeding. The procedural aspects of the hearing below did not conform to either those mandated for civil contempt, Commonwealth ex rel. Magaziner v. Magaziner, supra, or those required for criminal contempt under the Act of 1931. The penalty, however, was clearly an unconditional fine. Thus, it would appear that appellant was found guilty of an indirect criminal contempt.
The issue, then, is whether the court below may properly proceed against a contemnor without informing him of the potential criminal nature of the proceedings. “That the procedures and purposes and punishments are
Because the court below refused to inform appellant of the potential criminal nature of the proceedings, I would hold that it was improper to sentence appellant for criminal contempt. I would, therefore, reverse appellant’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. The court’s conclusion was proper. Appellant does not dispute that the union’s attorney was served, that appellant was present throughout the hearing on the preliminary injunction, and that he is an official of Local No. 8381. Rule 1517, Pa.R.C.P., allows notification of the filing of the decree by service upon the attorney representing the parties. Furthermore, it is well settled that, if the contemnor has actual knowledge of the decree, he may be held to account for defiance of the court’s order. East Cain Township v. Carter, 440 Pa. 607, 269 A.2d 703 (1970); Brocker v. Brocker, 429 Pa. 513, 241 A.2d 336 (1968).
. But see Marco Industries, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 401 Pa. 299, 164 A.2d 205 (1960), in which the appellant sought to establish the right of a contemnor to a preliminary hearing. The court held that the procedural rights of a person held for indirect criminal contempt are limited to those enumerated in the Act of 1931.
. In addition to punishing past acts of misbehavior by way of indirect criminal contempt, a court may punish past acts by imposing an unconditional compensatory fine and/or conditional imprisonment: “The opinions and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States make it clear that a Court can, for past acts of misbehavior amounting to civil contempt, impose an unconditional compensatory fine and/or a conditional imprisonment: United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599; Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797; also Parker v. U. S., 1 Cir., 126 F.2d 370.” Philadelphia Marine Trade Association v. International Longshoremen’s Association, 392 Pa. 500, 517, 140 A.2d 814, 823 (1958) (Concurring Opinion by Bell, J.).
. In Altermose Construction Co. v. Building and Trades Council of Philadelphia, supra, the Court held that, although it could not determine whether the appellant had been found guilty of civil or criminal contempt it would have to reverse the lower court because the procedural safeguards of neither criminal nor civil contempt were afforded appellant. In Knaus v. Knaus, supra, the Court held “Although the procedural indicia of civil contempt are unquestionably present in this case, even if it be assumed arguendo that appellant was committed for an indirect criminal contempt, his sentence would have to be reversed because the record before us fails to show that the procedural protection given by the Act of 1931, supra, was afforded the appellant. . . ” 387 Pa. at 380, 127 A.2d at 674. In Philadelphia Marine Trade Association v. International Longshoremen’s Association, supra, the Court held that, because appellants were not afforded the protections of the law to which they were entitled if being punished for criminal contempt and were not provided the right to be released if punished for civil contempt, the order of the lower court imposing a fine for contempt must be reversed. See also Casco Products Company v. Hess Bros., supra.
