To comply with due process, a criminal defendant must be provided with "fair notice of every crime of which [he] is accused," and such notice "must be sufficiently specific so as to allow the defendant to prepare any available defenses should he exercise his right to a trial." Reitz v. Flower, 245 A.3d 723, 727 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 939-40 (Pa. 2007)); see also Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174, 1176 (Pa. Super. 2005) ("Thus, as with those accused [of] other crimes, one charged with indirect criminal contempt is to be provided the safeguards which statute and criminal procedures afford."). Where a misdemeanor is charged, the Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the complaint include:
There must be unity in the subject matter of the Act, but "if the several sections of the law refer to and are germane to the same subject matter, which is described in its title, it is considered as embracing but a single subject, and as satisfying the requirements of the Constitution in this respect." Mayor, c. v. Reitz, 50 Md. 579. The title is sufficient if it fairly indicates the subject matter of the enactment.
Bloomer argues that Hitzel's testimony concerning this third "bubble gun" incident could not be used as a basis to support his summary harassment conviction because it was not contained in the private criminal complaint, in violation of his right to fair notice of facts sufficient to advise him of the nature of the offense charged. Bloomer's Brief at 11, 13-14; Bloomer's Reply Brief at 4-6 (citing Reitz v. Flower, 245 A.3d 723 (Pa. Super. 2021)). He argues that because the Commonwealth had to prove a "course of conduct" under subsection (a)(3) of the harassment statute, the third incident's omission from the complaint was "critical and potentially dispositive," and the admission of this evidence thus warrants reversal.
"A question regarding whether a due process violation occurred is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary." Reitz v. Flower, 245 A.3d 723, 727 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
"A question regarding whether a due process violation occurred is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary." Reitz v. Flower, 245 A.3d 723, 727 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). On January 13, 2021, counsel for the DAO, the CAC, CYS, the adoptive parents, the Children, as well as their GAL, met with the dependency court to view the videos of the forensic interviews.
"A question regarding whether a due process violation occurred is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary." Reitz v. Flower, 245 A.3d 723, 727 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). On January 13, 2021, counsel for the DAO, the CAC, CYS, the adoptive parents, the Children, as well as their GAL, met with the dependency court to view the videos of the forensic interviews.