Updegraph v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Criminal Law

Criminal LawBlasphemyCommon LawFreedom of ConscienceIndictment and Pleadingblasphemychristianity as part of common lawpublic peace

Facts

The defendant was indicted under a 1700 act punishing anyone who wilfully, premeditatedly, and despitefully blasphemes and speaks loosely and profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth. The indictment alleged that he said, in substance, that the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, a contradiction, and contained many lies, with intent to scandalize and vilify the Christian religion and the Scriptures. The jury found that he spoke words of that substance in the temper and with the intent charged. The indictment, however, did not allege that the words were spoken "profanely," although that word appeared in the statute.

Issue

Whether the blasphemy prosecution could stand in light of the argument that Christianity was not part of Pennsylvania law or had been displaced by constitutional guarantees of liberty of conscience, and whether the indictment was fatally defective for omitting a statutory element. Also implicated was whether malicious reviling of Christianity differs from sincere, temperate discussion of religious opinions.

Rule

In Pennsylvania, general Christianity is part of the common law, and malicious, deliberate, and public reviling of Christianity or the Scriptures may be punished as a temporal offense because it tends to disturb the public peace and undermine the moral restraints necessary to society. But when a prosecution is brought on a statute, the indictment must allege every circumstance and statutory word that forms part of the legal definition of the offense; omission of such a term is fatal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Pittsburgh, Nolan Pierce gave a public lecture at a rented hall arguing that the resurrection accounts in the Bible are inconsistent and should not be taken literally. He spoke in measured terms, cited sources, and repeatedly said he did not intend to mock anyone's faith but only to persuade listeners through reasoned criticism.

If Pennsylvania prosecutors charged Nolan with criminally reviling Christianity based on this speech, which is the strongest argument for dismissal under the majority's rule?

Explanation. The majority drew a line between punishable malicious reviling and protected religious discussion. Serious, temperate, and argumentative criticism, even if it questions doctrine, is not the sort of malicious public vilification the court treated as indictable. The offense requires a malicious and mischievous design to revile or subvert general Christianity, not mere conscientious theological debate. (Derived from Updegraph v. Commonwealth (n.d.).)