Commonwealth v. Rubright

• Decision Date: 02 May 1980
• Citation: 489 Pa. 356,414 A.2d 106
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald Dwayne RUBRIGHT. Appeal of Thomas E. HARTING (two cases). In re Thomas E. HARTING.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

414 A.2d 106

489 Pa. 356

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald Dwayne RUBRIGHT.

Appeal of Thomas E. HARTING (two cases). In re Thomas E. HARTING.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 2, 1980

Submitted Oct. 18, 1979.

Thomas G. Klingensmith, Lancaster County, Asst Public Defender, for appellant.

D Richard Eckman, Dist. Atty., Lancaster County, for appellee.

Before EAGEN C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY Justice.

This direct appeal ^[1] is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County holding appellant in contempt of court. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of sentence.

The relevant facts are as follows: Appellant, Thomas E. Harting, Esquire, is and was a public defender in Lancaster County. On Friday, July 16, 1976, in the course of representing a client at a suppression hearing, appellant made three objections to testimony given on direct examination by a police detective. The objections were as to hearsay utterances, and upon appellant's making his third objection, the following occurred:

MR. HARTING: I'm objecting to what Mr. Miller said.

THE COURT: Objection overruled. Do you understand the difference between hearsay for truth and falsity

MR. HARTING: Yes I do. Do you understand it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes I do. I'll speak to you later about this impertinence. Proceed.

MR. HARTING: Your Honor, I move that you replace yourself as a presiding judge and have another judge in this case.

THE COURT: I'll speak to you later. Overruled.

(Notes of Suppression Hearing at 13).

At the conclusion of the suppression hearing on Friday afternoon, the judge dismissed everyone from the courtroom except for appellant, a clerk and a court reporter. At that time, the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: Now Mr. Harting, I did not understand the remark you made to the Court as to whether I knew something about the law, or words to that effect. What was the reason for that remark which I take to be an impertinence?

MR. HARTING: I took it to be an impertinence when you asked the same question to me, Your Honor. If we are to have any kind of proper discussion on whether or not you or I understand the law, I think we ought to be on equal terms. I think, Your Honor, you're a judge. You are paid forty thousand dollars a year. You should have the temperament and patience as that of an attorney, and when you ask questions and try to force attorneys and try to embarrass them in front of the court thing in front in open court, I think that you are not doing your judicial function.

THE COURT: And you think that question I asked you was a question which was deemed and intended to embarrass you?

MR. HARTING: It was in the same context as my question.

THE COURT: And you think

MR. HARTING: They are almost identical.

THE COURT: And you think my question to you was intended to embarrass you?

MR. HARTING: If you thought the question I asked you was intended to be one of impertinence yes.

THE COURT: And you think that was the intention of the Court to embarrass you?

MR. HARTING: There was no doubt it was taken that way. In other words, you asked me if I understood the law.

THE COURT: Is there anything further you wish to say about this?

MR. HARTING: No, Your Honor.

(Whereupon the hearing adjourned.)

(Notes of Suppression Hearing at 34-36).

On Monday morning, July 19, 1976, the judge held appellant in contempt of court and ordered him to appear later that afternoon for sentencing. At the sentencing proceeding, appellant appeared, with counsel, before all four judges of the Lancaster County Court and his counsel was given an opportunity to speak on his behalf. Appellant apologized to the court at that time for his previous behavior. Finally, the President Judge administered a severe reprimand to appellant for his disrespectful conduct.

The statute upon which our jurisdiction is based states, in relevant part: "The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the Courts of Common Pleas in any of the following classes of cases . . . (5) direct criminal contempt . . . ." ^[2] (emphasis added). Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, supra Note 1. Appellee objects that this appeal is premature, arguing that the court below did not enter a judgment of sentence on appellant's conviction and that a conviction without a sentence is not a final order. Thus, we must determine initially whether the "severe reprimand" which was administered to appellant as the sanction for his contemptuous remarks constitutes a judgment of sentence, i. e., a final appealable order.

Traditionally, contempt is punishable by fine or imprisonment. See, 17 P.S. § 2042. ^[3] The recently enacted Sentencing Code, ^[4] however, authorizes a variety of sentencing alternatives, depending upon the circumstances of each case. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321. One of the enumerated alternatives is "(a) determination of guilt without further penalty" 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1321(a)(2), which may be imposed by the court "(i)f in light of all the circumstances, probation would be appropriate under § 1322 . . . ., but it appears that probation is unnecessary . . . ." ^[5] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1323.

It appears that we have before us a sentence of "guilt without penalty." Although an order of probation may have been appropriate in this case, it is apparent that probation was unnecessary.

In some instances, the court may decide that the needs of justice are fulfilled by a determination of guilt alone, without necessity for further penalty. The shame and trauma of public conviction may be punishment enough and there may be no need of any plan for 'reformation' or control. In such cases, the courts should be free to make such a judgment without requiring useless probation.

S. Toll, Pennsylvania Crimes Code Annotated, § 1323, (Supp.1978) (Report of Special Committee of Pennsylvania Bar Association). Thus, the lower court, in meting out a "severe reprimand", acknowledged appellant's guilt without imposing any other form of punishment. As such, we have a "determination of guilt without further penalty" as authorized by 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1321, 1323, which constitutes a final, appealable order.

Having determined that this case is properly before us, we now turn to a consideration of the merits. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his contempt conviction under the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, § 23, 17 P.S. § 2041, reenacted as 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4131, which provides, in pertinent part: ^[6]

The power of the several courts of this Commonwealth to issue attachments and to inflict summary punishments for contempts of court shall be restricted to the following cases, . . .

III. To the misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice. (hereinafter "subsection III")

We agree with appellant and accordingly reverse the judgment of sentence. ^[7]

The principles controlling convictions for contempt are well settled:

In a prosecution for criminal contempt, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt . . . To prove criminal contempt of court which may be acted upon under authority of subsection III of the Act of June 16, 1836, the Commonwealth must prove an improper intent, an action and an obstruction of the administration of justice.

In re Johnson, 467 Pa. 552, 557, 359 A.2d 739, 742 (1976). The threshold issue is whether appellant's remarks obstructed justice. "(F)or conduct to be an obstruction of the administration of justice, it must interfere with and disrupt the orderly process of a court." Id. at 558, 359 A.2d at 742. "Mere affront to the trial judge is not enough." Id. at 560, 359 A.2d at 743. "An obstruction of the administration of justice is a significant disruption of judicial proceedings." Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 372, 386 A.2d 971, 979 (1978). "(T)hat remarks are injudicious . . . an affront to the dignity or sensibility of the court . . . or even disrespectful or insulting . . . will not, without more, justify conviction for summary criminal contempt." Id. at 373, 386 A.2d at 979. Inappropriate and ill-mannered conduct that "did not obstruct or delay the hearing . . . falls short of that misbehavior which may be punished under subsection III of the Act of 1836." In re Cogan, 485 Pa. 273, 282, 401 A.2d 1142, 1146 (1979). Appellant's conduct, judged by the foregoing standards, did not amount to that which would be punishable as criminal contempt. The remarks made by appellant were of momentary nature and we do not find the progress of the hearing to have been impeded thereby. Appellant's remarks were, however, clearly impertinent.

A lawyer has the responsibility of representing his client to the fullest extent possible, within the bounds of the law. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 7, EC 7-1. As advocates in an adversary system, lawyers must be afforded significant latitude to vigorously pursue their client's cause. Such obligation, however, in no way lessens the lawyer's absolute duty to respect and uphold the dignity of the judicial process, Id., EC 7-36; ABA Standards, The Defense Function, § 7.1.

The "law" is given corporeal existence in the form of the judge. When carrying out the judicial function, the judge becomes a personification of justice itself. When presiding over any aspect of the judicial process, the judge is not merely another person in the courtroom, subject to affront and insult by lawyers. "The obligation of the lawyer to maintain a respectful attitude toward the court is 'not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office,' but to give due recognition to the position...