The SC Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court's decision to hold a party in contempt of court for (a) making an obscene finger gesture to his attorney after the hearing concluded and (b) using profanity directed at the judge. While most people would certainly not act as outrageously as the man in this case, it serves as a good reminder that parties should always be on their best behavior in Court.
In this case, the party apparently "flipped off” the attorney and then told the judge “f**k you, you bastard.” Even after being held in contempt and sentenced to serve a year in jail for his contemptous actions, the party was still not finished. On his way out of the courtroom, he apparently fought with the deputies, only to be brought back in to be chastised by the judge. For his antics, the judge sentenced him to two, six-month sentences for contempt, to be served consecutively consecutively to each other, for a total of one year in jail.
The Court of Appeals held that all courts have the inherent power to punish for contempt to preserve order and maintain decorum in judicial proceedings. Contemptuous conduct in the presence of the court is direct contempt, and South Carolina courts have taken an expansive view of the “presence” and “court” requirements to encompass all elements of the judicial system, not just the mere physical presence of the judge or courtroom. No warning of possible contempt is necessary.
In his appeal, the party argued that his sentence should be vacated because he was entitled to a jury trial. The United States Supreme Court has held that petty crimes can generally be tried without a jury trial, but serious crimes require a jury trial if the accused requests one. The distinction between a "petty" and "serious" crime is generally determined by the maximum punishment assigned by the legislature. Crimes with punishments of six months or less are presumably “petty,” while crimes with punishments greater than six months are presumably “serious.”
In this case, the Court of Appeals noted that the two consecutive six-month sentences are the equivalent of a one-year sentence, which would normally entitle a defendant to a jury trial if he or she requested one. However, the party in this case never requested a jury trial, and he never objected to the imposition of the contempt sentences without a jury trial. For those reasons, the appellate court found that this issue was not preserved for appellate review, and it affirmed the trial court's sentences for contempt.
You can read the full opinion in
Rhoad v. State by clicking
HERE.
