The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a ruling against Matthew Snyder for indirect criminal contempt after he violated a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order. The court's decision, filed on October 26, 2026, comes after Snyder was sentenced to six months of probation for his actions, which included approaching his estranged wife while she was boating with their child.

This ruling affects Snyder, who is now subject to probation, and highlights the seriousness of violating protective orders in Pennsylvania. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the legal consequences that can arise from such violations, especially in cases involving domestic violence.

Background

The case began when Matthew Snyder was charged with multiple offenses, including strangulation and aggravated assault, after an incident involving his wife, Shelbie Snyder. Following these charges, a PFA order was issued on May 21, 2025, to protect Shelbie and their minor child from Snyder. The order prohibited him from having any contact with Shelbie or the child, either directly or indirectly.

On August 20, 2025, Snyder was charged with indirect criminal contempt for allegedly violating the PFA order on August 16, 2025. During a hearing on September 25, 2025, Shelbie testified that Snyder approached her while she was boating with their child, violating the terms of the protective order. The court found that Snyder's actions constituted a clear violation of the PFA, leading to his subsequent sentencing.

The Ruling

The Superior Court, led by Judge Stabile, affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that the evidence supported the finding of indirect criminal contempt. The court noted, "The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates that Appellant violated the PFA order." This statement underscores the court's position that Snyder's actions were not only intentional but also in direct violation of the order.

In its opinion, the court emphasized that Snyder's conduct was clearly intended to intimidate Shelbie. The ruling highlighted that Snyder had approached Shelbie's boat on two separate occasions, making eye contact and waving at her and their child. The court concluded that this behavior was not only a violation of the PFA order but also demonstrated wrongful intent.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving violations of protective orders in Pennsylvania. It reinforces the idea that any contact, even in public settings, can lead to serious legal consequences if a PFA order is in place. The court's decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the importance of adhering to protective orders.

Moreover, the ruling highlights the court's commitment to protecting victims of domestic violence. By upholding the contempt ruling against Snyder, the court sends a clear message that violations of protective orders will not be taken lightly, and offenders may face legal repercussions.

What’s Next

Matthew Snyder has the option to appeal the court's decision, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time.