John Williams was charged with burglary and several related crimes. At the Preliminary Hearing of the matter, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Donald Nugent, the son of the owners of the home that had been allegedly burglarized by Williams.
As Nugent was about to begin testifying, Williams entered the courtroom and, although Nugent and the trial court did not observe it, Williams was seen directing one of his hands – bent in the shape of a gun – at Nugent.
After the charged offenses were held for court, the trial court then held a summary contempt proceeding, explaining to Williams that he had been observed making a threatening gesture toward a witness.
Williams attempted to explain that he was inexperienced in the criminal justice system, and that he had been “shocked” upon entering the courtroom, to the degree that he did not know where he was. He also claimed to have a “twitch” in his hand, which had caused his inadvertent gesture toward Nugent.
The trial Court found Williams guilty of direct contempt and he appealed on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to do so.
On appeal, the Superior Court explained that the offense of direct contempt has four elements which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: “(1) misconduct, (2) in the presence of the court, (3) committed with the intent to obstruct the proceedings, (4) which obstructs the administration of justice.” The Court further explained that the element of obstructing the administration of justice does not necessarily entail a delay to a court’s proceedings. “Even threats made toward a victim at the conclusion of a case, and outside the physical presence of the court, may amount to obstruction because witness intimidation ‘would clearly obstruct the efficient administration of justice and demean the court’s authority.’”
Accordingly, “even if [Williams’] conduct was not directly observed by the trial court or victim, and did not result in any delays, he still caused an obstruction” when he “threatened a witness who was testifying in open court, resulting in actual, imminent prejudice to the fairness of the proceeding, as well as to the court’s orderly procedure and authority.”
Judgment affirmed.
COMMONWEALTH V. JOHN WILLIAMS, No. 2725 EDA 2022 (PA SUPER 04/23/2024)
