# Riccobene Appeal > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 13, 1970 · 439 Pa. 404 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698275 ## Case - **Full name:** Riccobene Appeal - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** July 13, 1970 - **Citations:** 439 Pa. 404; 268 A.2d 104; 1970 Pa. LEXIS 711 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Cohen - **Judges:** Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy - **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698275 ## Opinion text Dissenting Opinion by Mb. Justice Cohen: The majority concludes that the sentence imposed was for civil contempt and that such sentence was proper because courts have the inherent power to use this remedial device to enforce their lawful orders. I *426 agree with the general statement that a court has the inherent power to enforce its orders through civil contempt citations, but the majority’s opinion contains no discussion of the very special and unusual circumstances surrounding this civil contempt citation. If the Act of November 22, 1968, P. L. , had not been enacted and if the court below had determined that appellant’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege was not proper, then the refusal to answer the submitted question could validly have generated a civil contempt. That, however, is not the posture in which this matter came before the court below. Judge Sloan® affirmed appellant’s light to assert his privilege and to refuse to answer the questions. The Attorney General and the District Attorney then sought to invoke Act No. 333 of 1968, and on February 26, 1970 the court decreed that appellant must testify before the grand jury with the immunity provided by that act. On March 6, 1970 appellant was asked the identical questions before the grand jury, and despite the granted immunity he persisted in his refusal to answer. The lower court then held a hearing to determine whether he should be held in contempt of court. The Commonwealth produced evidence of Ms refusal to answer the questions, and the court then offered Mm a chance to purge himself of any contempt by answering. After he refused again to answer, asserting his constitutional rights, the court concluded that the grant of immunity removed those rights and imposed its sentence. There is no question that if the Act of 1968 had not been passed and it is determined that a witness is rightfully asserting his privilege (as here) no sanctions for contempt, either civil or criminal, could be imposed. The problem is to determine the effect of the immunity statute. Section 5 of the act in unmistakable language *427 states that “Any person who shall refuse or decline to testify . . . after being granted immunity and ordered by the court, shall be guilty of criminal contempt. . . .” Without that statute, the court has no power, inherent or otherwise, to impose any penalties. Therefore, when the legislature enters this field in which courts had no power previously, courts can only be deemed to have the specific power granted to them in the statute. Courts may not exercise their normal inherent powers in this situation because they could not exercise them in the absence of the statute and the legislation does not give them what they otherwise did not possess. The legislature has occupied the field and has prescribed criminal contempt as the only permissible sanction. Certainly the statute might be more effective if civil contempt were a permissible sanction, but we can not supply what the draftsmen have omitted. In addition, Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. . . .” “The object of that requirement is that legislators, and others interested, shall receive direct notice in immediate connection with the act itself, of its subject, so that they may know or be put upon inquiry as to its provisions and their effect. Suggestions or inferences which may be drawn from knowledge dehors the language used, are not enough. The constitution requires that the notice shall be contained in the title itself.” Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Samuels, 163 Pa. 283, 287 , 29 Atl. 909 (1894). See also, Boyertown Burial Casket Co. v. Commonwealth, 366 Pa. 574, 590 , 79 A. 2d 449 (1951). The title to Act No. 333 states “An Act authorizing courts of record to grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for or on account of any matter or thing concerning which they were ordered to testify in a pro *428 ceeding before certain grand juries, investigating committees or commissions and courts of record; making the refusal to testify after such immunity criminal contempt and providing penalties.” (Emphasis supplied) The title is clear in prescribing criminal contempt and criminal contempt alone as the penalty for refusal to answer. If the majority is correct in reading the act to permit a civil contempt citation, the act is unconstitutional under Article III, Section 3 because the title gives absolutely no notice that civil contempt is a permissible sanction. Finally, the legislative history of Section 5 demonstrates conclusively that criminal contempt is the only permissible sanction. As originally passed by the Senate that section stated “Any person who shall refuse or decline to testify . . . shall be guilty of contempt ” (Emphasis supplied). On third reading in the House of Representatives that language was changed from “contempt” to “criminal contempt.” In this case the power to impose a civil contempt penalty is not within the inherent powers of the court because prior to the passage of Act No. 333 the court had no powers, inherent or otherwise. Therefore, the court can be deemed to have only those powers which are enumerated in the act itself, and the sole power given by the act is that of finding the recalcitrant witness guilty of criminal contempt. I dissent. Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this dissenting opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698275. Public record. Not legal advice.