Com. v. Collier
| Decision Date | 03 June 1986 |
| Citation | 353 Pa.Super. 543,510 A.2d 796 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Augustus COLLIER. Appeal of Thomas INNES, Esquire. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Leonard Sosnov, Asst. Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and ROWLEY and WIEAND, JJ.
Thomas Innes, Esquire, while representing Augustus Collier, a criminal defendant charged with six robberies, was twice held in contempt of court and fined. He was summarily held in contempt of court during a suppression hearing when he pursued requests for evidence determined by the court to be irrelevant to the suppression issue. Later, during jury selection, he was again held in contempt for his insistence that Collier should be allowed to leave the courtroom to go to the bathroom. Innes was ordered to pay a fine of $500.00 for the first offense and a fine of $100.00 for the second offense. He argues on appeal that the court's contempt findings were unwarranted. We are constrained to agree. His conduct, if rude and obnoxious, was not contemptuous.
42 Pa.C.S. § 4131(3). 1 This statutory offense "requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of 1) misconduct, 2) in the presence of the court, 3) committed with intent to obstruct the proceedings, which 4) obstructs the administration of justice." Commonwealth v. Cameron, 501 Pa. 572, 575, 462 A.2d 649, 650 (1983). See: In re Nugent, 494 Pa. 2, 8, 427 A.2d 1154, 1157 (1980); Commonwealth v. Rubright, 489 Pa. 356, 363, 414 A.2d 106, 110 (1980); In re Cogan, 485 Pa. 273, 281, 401 A.2d 1142, 1146 (1979); Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 371, 386 A.2d 971, 979 (1978); In re Johnson, 467 Pa. 552, 557, 359 A.2d 739, 742 (1976); McMillan v. Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc., 467 Pa. 266, 271, 356 A.2d 742, 745 (1976); Kinter v. Kinter, 348 Pa.Super. 27, 28, 501 A.2d 281, 282 (1985); Commonwealth v. Restifo, 339 Pa.Super. 225, 228, 488 A.2d 633, 635 (1985).
No satisfactory definition of contemptuous misconduct has been developed. Perhaps the best definition is that misconduct is behavior that is inappropriate to the role of the actor.... An attorney engages in misconduct if his behavior is calculated to hinder the search for truth.... Misconduct occurs in the presence of the court if the court itself witnesses the conduct or if the conduct occurs outside the courtroom but so near thereto that it obstructs the administration of justice.... A contemner acts with wrongful intent if he "knows or should reasonably be aware that his conduct is wrongful." ... An obstruction of justice is a significant disruption of judicial proceedings.... What is required is a showing of actual, imminent prejudice to a fair proceeding or to preservation of the court's authority.... This danger "must not be remote or even probable; it must immediately imperil."
Commonwealth v. Garrison, supra 478 Pa. at 372, 386 A.2d at 979 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Innes was first held in contempt for conduct occurring during the suppression hearing. There, while questioning a police officer regarding identification statements made by victims of the robberies after having examined photographs, Innes learned that witnesses other than victims had also been shown the same photographic array. The following occurred during defense cross-examination of a police witness:
Q. Who else did you go to?
Q. When you went to the other people, did they make identification or not make identification?
Our examination of this interchange between the hearing judge and defense counsel, as well as those portions of the record which precede and follow the same, fails to disclose contemptuous conduct. There was no basis for finding that counsel intended to disrupt the proceedings or that he did so in fact. "Attorneys have a right to be persistent, vociferous, contentious, and imposing, even to the point of appearing obnoxious, when acting in their client's behalf." Commonwealth v. Garrison, supra at 374, 386 A.2d at 980, quoting In re Dillinger, 461 F.2d 389, 400 (7th Cir.1972). In Commonwealth v. Restifo, supra 339 Pa.Super. at 229-230, 488 A.2d at 635-636, this Court said:
"If a lawyer can be denied the opportunity even to address the court on the subject of what he conceives to be valid objection, it is hard to imagine what part of his function as advocate is left to him." In the Matter of Nugent, 494 Pa. 2, 7-8, 427 A.2d 1154, 1157 (1980), quoting Edmunds v. Chang, 365 F.Supp. 941, 948 (D.C.Hawaii 1973), rev'd on other grounds, 509 F.2d 39 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825, 96 S.Ct. 39, 46 L.Ed.2d 41 (1975). It is the responsibility of counsel to represent zealously, but with due regard for the dignity of the judicial process, the position of his or her client. Commonwealth v. Rubright, 489 Pa. 356, 364, 414 A.2d 106, 110 (1980). A trial court will not be permitted to stifle an attorney's advocacy by refusing to allow an objection, and a request intended to perfect the record for subsequent review will not support a conviction for contempt. See and compare: In the Matter of Nugent, supra. Mere affront to the trial judge is not enough. Remarks that are injudicious, or even disrespectful, will not, without more, justify a summary conviction for contempt of court. In the Matter of Campolongo, supra 495 Pa. at 633, 435 A.2d at 584 [ (1981) ]; Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 373, 386 A.2d 971, 979 (1978). Inappropriate and even ill-mannered conduct which does not obstruct or delay the trial "falls short of that misbehavior which may be punished under [42 Pa.C.S. § 4131(3) ]." Commonwealth v. Rubright, supra 489 Pa. at 364, 414 A.2d at 110. Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 482 Pa. 76, 96, 393 A.2d 386, 396 (1978) (Manderino, J. dissenting), quoting In the Matter of Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555, 92 S.Ct. 659, 660, 30 L.Ed.2d 708, 711 (1972).
Assuming, without deciding, that Innes was improperly using cross-examination of a police witness to discover the existence of evidence which was arguably exculpatory, the remedy was, as the hearing court recognized, to sustain objections to questions irrelevant to the suppression issue. It does not follow that counsel's continued assertion, with legal argument, that he should be allowed to continue his line of inquiry, was intended to obstruct or did obstruct judicial proceedings. Counsel's conduct did not immediately imperil the fairness of the proceeding or the preservation of the court's authority.
The second finding of contempt was made during the selection of a jury to try the charges against Collier. When Collier expressed a need to urinate, Innes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Martorano
...on cross-examination should be allowed, despite objections to the same which were previously sustained, Commonwealth v. Collier, 353 Pa.Super. 543, 510 A.2d 796 (1986). Instantly, Christie's actions on Friday, March 30, coupled with her actions on the following Monday, warranted a citation ......
-
Com. v. Jones
...of the judicial process, is not punishable by contempt, nor is conduct that merely offends the court. Commonwealth v. Collier, 353 Pa.Super. 543, 548-49, 510 A.2d 796, 798 (1986) (citations Ferguson asserts that he was punished for "making an objection" which was "not inappropriate and was ......
-
Hernandez v. State
... ... allegedly contemptuous conduct that had occurred during the ... recess); and Commonwealth v. Collier, 510 A.2d 796, ... 800 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986) (holding that it was ... "difficult to find a disruption of judicial ... proceedings" ... ...
-
Creamer, Matter of
...court; (3) committed with intent to obstruct the proceedings; (4) which obstructs the administration of justice. Commonwealth v. Collier, 353 Pa.Super. 543, 510 A.2d 796 (1986); Commonwealth v. Restifo, 339 Pa.Super. 225, 488 A.2d 633 (1985). In Restifo, an attorney attempted to place on th......