concurring.
I agree with the majority that “misbehavior in office” as defined under Article V, Section 18(l)1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is not merely a temporal concept. It may not be applicable every time a sitting jurist commits a crime unrelated to his or her judicial responsibilities. However, where the jurist has been convicted of hindering apprehension or prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a)(3),2 or obstructing administration of law under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101,3 the conviction of those offenses by definition establishes a sufficient basis for concluding that the jurist has “misbehaved in office” under Article V, § 18(l). The conduct need not be confined to matters over which the jurist was personally presiding; it is sufficient if it is shown that he or she has used the office to improperly intervene or importune in any legal proceeding with the intent of influencing the outcome for the benefit of one of the litigants therein.
I therefore would find in this case misbehavior in office as defined in Article V, Section 18(l) has been satisfied as a result of his convictions under 18 Pa.C.S.A. 5101 and 5105.
. The Judiciary
(1) A justice, judge or justice of the peace convicted of misbehavior in office by a court, ... shall forfeit automatically his judicial office and thereafter be ineligible for judicial office.
Pa. Const. art. 5, § 18(l).
. § 5105. Hindering apprehension or prosecution
(a) Offense defined. — A person commits an offense if, with intent to hinder the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for crime, he:
(3) conceals or destroys evidence of the crime, or tampers with a witness, informant, document or other source of information, regardless of its admissibility in evidence.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a)(3).
. § 5101. Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function
A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law....
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101.