Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the case of Commonwealth v. Stevenson, addressed the issue of notice in a protection from abuse indirect criminal contempt case. More recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed indirect criminal contempt in a PFA matter, in the case of Commonwealth v. Smith, 288 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. 2022). Protection from abuse matters begin as civil cases. If the protection from abuse order is violated, the commonwealth may institute a criminal proceeding for indirect criminal contempt. A defendant in an indirect criminal contempt case may be convicted and suffer a criminal sentence if the commonwealth is successful in proving its case. A violation of either a temporary PFA order or a final PFA order may result in an indirect criminal contempt conviction.

In the Smith case, the pertinent facts are as follows: Ms. Smith (wife) filed a PFA petition against Mr. Smith (husband). That same day, the trial court granted the wife’s petition and ordered a temporary PFA that prohibited the husband from having any contact with the wife. That night, the husband was served with the temporary PFA order and evicted from the parties’ residence. During the following day, the husband sent several Facebook messages to the wife’s Facebook account. The husband was then charged with one count of indirect criminal contempt a day later. A hearing was held on the indirect criminal contempt charge along with the previously scheduled hearing on whether a PFA would be granted.