Commonwealth v. Outlaw

306 A.3d 406

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Basile OUTLAW, Appellant

No. 1788 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted May 17, 2023

Filed December 6, 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 21, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No(s): MC-51-MD-0000031-2022, Roxanne E. Covington, J.

Aaron J. Marcus, Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Lawrence J. Goode, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:

Basile Outlaw appeals the judgment of sentence imposed for his conviction for direct criminal contempt for Outlaw’s conduct in open court.¹ He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Outlaw attended a hearing on a motion to suppress, on June 16, 2022, as a spectator. As the judge finished announcing her findings on the motion, Outlaw stood up and yelled, "The judge is a cocksucker." N.T., Contempt Hearing, 6/16/22, at 10.² Outlaw left the courtroom, and the deputy sheriff went to look for him. Outlaw later voluntarily returned, and the sheriff placed him in custody. Id. at 10-11.

After the suppression hearing, the court held another hearing that involved Outlaw, After swearing Outlaw in, the court asked him, "I take it you’re not too happy with the outcome of this motion?" Id. at 4. Outlaw replied, "Uh, I’m not really sure how everything goes, but no." Id. at 4-5. The court then stated "Yes. Apparently, you think I’m a cocksucker." Id. at 5. Outlaw replied that he was upset and that "it’s more a reference to the cop itself." Id.

The court then called the deputy sheriff, Deputy Kevin Smith, who was present in the room during the motion, to testify. Id. at 5, 6. Deputy Smith stated that after the judge made her decision on the motion to suppress, Outlaw stood up and yelled, "The judge is a cocksucker." Id. at 6. Outlaw maintained that he did not say "‘the judge,’ specifically." Id. The court then took a brief recess to obtain counsel for Outlaw. Id. at 8. When the proceeding resumed, the court placed a summary of the facts on the record and said it would be holding a contempt hearing. Id. at 10-11. The judge stated:

Mr. Outlaw made a statement directed towards me, indicating the judge, quote, "The judge is a cocksucker."

He was initially - - and then he left the courtroom and came back to the courtroom, at which time he was apprehended by the sheriff.

Based upon that outburst and statement directed to me, overheard by me and the sheriff, I am holding or I will be holding a contempt hearing.

Id. Outlaw’s counsel stated that she "concede[d³] this contempt, the direct contempt, under Commonwealth v. Moody."⁴ Id. at 11. The court then continued the contempt hearing and set Outlaw’s bail at $75,000. Id. at 11-12.

Outlaw filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing, in part, that his conduct did not intend to nor did it actually interrupt or obstruct the proceedings. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed 6/17/22, at ¶ 8.

At the next hearing, the court placed on the record its findings of fact. N.T., 6/21/22, at 4. The court said that after Outlaw’s outburst, it stopped the proceeding and asked, "What did you say?" Id. The court stated that Outlaw replied, "[N]ever mind," and left the courtroom. Id. A sheriff went after him but could not find him, and "[s]ome discussions were held regarding the outburst, which interrupted the proceeding." Id. at 5. The court stated that Outlaw then returned to the courtroom and was placed in custody.

The court afforded Outlaw an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, and he expressed remorse. Id. at 16. He said that when he returned to the courtroom on the day in question, he was "coming back to apologize for the outburst and disrespect." Id. at 18. Outlaw’s counsel stated that Outlaw was "apologetic" and asked the court to allow Outlaw to be released. Id. at 6, 18. The court imposed a sentence of 15 to 30 days’ incarceration with credit for time served. This timely appeal followed.

Outlaw raises one issue in this appeal: "Did the trial court err in finding [Outlaw] guilty of direct criminal contempt because the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the offense because it did not in any way, let alone any significant way, obstruct the proceedings?" Outlaw’s Br. at 3.

[1–4] "Direct criminal contempt consists of misconduct in the presence of the court or misconduct so near thereto as to interfere with the immediate business of the court or disobedience to the lawful process of the court." In re Campolongo, 495 Pa. 627,435 A.2d 581, 583 n.4 (1981).⁵ "[I]n considering an appeal from a contempt order, we place great reliance on the discretion of the trial judge. Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process, and on appeal its actions will be reversed only when a plain abuse of discretion occurs." Williams, 753 A.2d at 861 (citation omitted). Our review is confined to examining the record to determine if the facts support the trial court’s decision. Id.⁶

[5, 6] Pennsylvania courts have "inherent power and statutory authority to impose summary punishment for direct criminal contempt[.]" Moody, 125 A.3d at 9. The applicable statutory provision empowers courts "to issue attachments and to impose summary punishments for" certain circumstances, including "[t]he misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4132(3). A conviction for direct criminal contempt under Section 4132(3) requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt (1) of misconduct, (2) in the presence of the court, (3) committed with the intent to obstruct the proceedings, (4) that obstructs the administration of justice." Moody, 125 A.3d at 5 n.4 (citation omitted).

Outlaw concedes that there was sufficient evidence of the first three elements – misconduct in the presence of the court with the intent to obstruct the proceedings. He only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the fourth element: the obstruction of the administration of justice. See Outlaw’s Br. at 22-24. He maintains that the record from the underlying suppression hearing does not show that the court had to stop the suppression proceeding or that the matter was paused, delayed, or altered due to Outlaw’s conduct. Id. at 26. He also argues that his conduct did not "demonstrate a refusal to accept the court’s power to decide the motion[.]" Id. at 36. He claims that his actions did not disrupt the court from doing its job and that there is no evidence that he refused to comply with the court’s orders or warnings to him.⁷

The Commonwealth agrees that Outlaw’s outburst did not constitute an obstruction of the administration of justice. It concedes that there was an interruption in the proceedings but is of the opinion that the interruption was "de minimis." Com. Br. at 10. It argues that "the hearing on the motion to suppress was adjourned in a timely manner and that the proceedings only continued as necessary to locate[ ] an attorney to represent defendant and to hold his contempt hearing." Id. at 9.

Here, the record of the suppression hearing shows the following exchange as the court rendered its decision on the suppression motion. It does not record Outlaw’s outburst.

THE COURT: The [c]ourt finds that the weapon that was found in the vehicle was in plain view. The motion to suppress the evidence, the statement provided by the defendant in this case, is denied.

How are we proceeding at this time?

Are we moving forward with a trial, a jury, or a plea?

[Defense Counsel]: What I would like – and I know it’s 4:35, Your Honor, so I would need to speak with my client and give him his options in terms of a jury, a waiver or a potential for a recusal.

THE COURT: Request for recusal would be a jury demand.

[Defense Counsel]: Understood.

THE COURT: Okay.

[Defense Counsel]: So may I.

THE COURT: I’ll give you five minutes.

[Defense Counsel]: Okay.

(Brief recess taken.)

N.T., Motion to Suppress Hearing, 6/16/22, at 102-103. When counsel returned, the court continued the case for the defendant in the underlying case to make a decision. The transcript ends with counsel stating, "Thank you thank you [sic] for courtesy. I just found the ask [sic] you stick around for moment on another issue, just in case." Id. at 104.

As discussed above, after the court made its findings on the suppression motion, it held a contempt hearing and explained that Outlaw stood up and it heard Outlaw yell, "The judge is a cocksucker." N.T., Contempt Hearing, 6/16/22, at 10. At the hearing on the habeas petition, the court provided the following facts,

[The trial judge] stopped the proceeding and stated, What did you say? And he said, never mind. I’m leaving. I’m leaving, and proceeded to walk out the door. I inquired of the sheriff if he could go and stop him. The sheriff and my – I believe a member of [the] court staff, the court officer, also proceeded outside, but Mr. Outlaw could not be found. Some discussions were held regardingthe outburst, which interrupted the proceeding.

Shortly, thereafter, Mr. Outlaw returned to the courtroom. He was pointed out and the sheriff then took him into custody.

N.T., Contempt and Sentencing Hearing, 6/21/22, at 4-5. Outlaw did not object to the summary.

[7, 8] An obstruction of the administration of justice occurs where the conduct at issue "significantly disrupt[s] judicial proceedings," either by "actual, imminent prejudice to a fair proceeding or prejudice to the preservation of the court’s orderly procedure and authority." Williams, 753 A.2d at 863 (citation and emphasis omitted). While "[n]either injudicious remarks nor affronts to the dignities or sensibilities of the court," without more, constitute an obstruction to the administration of justice, the element is met where there has been a "significant disruption" of proceedings. Mutzabaugh, 699 A.2d at...