Pa Constitution - right to reputation

In re 30^th County Investigating Grand Jury – Pa. Supreme Court – 10-24-24

https://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/

 

Individuals’ “inherent and indefeasible” right to their reputation is enshrined in the Pennsylvania Constitution. PA CONST. art 1, § 1 (“All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property 

and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”). 

 

This Court has been clear that the right to reputation is not some lesser right but, rather, a fundamental constitutional entitlement on the same plane as the rights to life, liberty, and property. Fortieth I, 190 A.3d at 573 (citing Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Eastern Pa., 923 A.2d 389, 395 n.7 (Pa. 2007)). See also Driscoll v. Corbett ̧ 69 A.3d 197, 210 (Pa. 2013) (acknowledging the right to reputation as among the foundational freedoms); R. v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Public Welfare, 636 A.2d 142, 149 (Pa. 1994) (this Court regards the right to reputation “as a fundamental interest which cannot be abridged without compliance with constitutional standards of due process and equal protection.”) (citations omitted)).

 

Housing - sec. 8 - lying about income - theft by deception

Commonwealth v. Gaspard – Pa. Super. – 9-17-24 – reported, precedential

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A12023-24o%20-%20106074904281363762.pdf?cb=1

 

Tenant convicted of theft by deception for lying about her income and thus receiving sec. 8 benefits.

 

The record confirms that Appellant intentionally withheld reporting a source of income to the Authority despite her signed certifications that she would report any changes in income from any source, and that the Authority relied on Appellant’s statements when awarding her Section 8 housing. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922(a)(1); McSloy, supra; Grife, supra. 

 

As the trial court observed, the Authority could not investigate whether Appellant had a net income from self-employment if it was not put on notice of that employment. . . .By failing to disclose her business income, Appellant prevented the Authority from acquiring information which might have affected her entitlement to Section 8 housing, and the Authority paid a housing benefit on Appellant’s behalf. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3922. 

 

Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict-winner, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for theft by deception.