Articles in the Contempt category

In this earlier post, my current colleague Danny Spiegel (who was an NC Assistant Appellate Defender at the time the post was published), analyzed the law of civil contempt and […]

For 94 years, the UNC School of Government has been the backbone of support for North Carolina’s public officials, from clerks and judges to budget analysts, municipal and county managers, newly elected officials, public defenders, and prosecutors. From Murphy to Manteo, we are here to ensure that those who serve our communities have the resources, training, and guidance they need to succeed. Today we are asking for your help to continue furthering this mission. Please watch this message from our Dean or read on to learn how you can be a spark in this effort.

Is it legally permissible to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent based on that juvenile’s violation of an order for protective supervision in an undisciplined matter? The North Carolina Court of Appeals says yes. The court upheld the practice of adjudicating a juvenile delinquent following an admission to indirect contempt related to violation of an order issued in an undisciplined case in In re B.W.C., 2022-NCCOA-590 (September 6, 2022). This post details the court’s holding and explores ramifications of the decision.

In 2015, I wrote two blog posts summarizing the law relating to the use of contempt to enforce orders to pay support. No Default Judgment in Contempt (May 1, 2015) and Contempt: Establishing Ability to Pay (May 8, 2015). Recent appellate opinions justify revisiting this topic.

READ POST "No Contempt for the Nonpayment of Money Without Actual Evidence of Ability to Pay (December 5, 2018)"

The following post was written by my colleague Jamie Markham and published on the North Carolina Criminal Blog on August 11, 2016.

One of the first posts I wrote on this blog was about the punishment for criminal contempt. The post included a discussion about whether sentences for contempt could be run consecutively—something our appellate courts hadn’t yet ruled on at the time. In State v. Burrow, the court of appeals approved a trial court’s orders sentencing a defendant to six consecutive 30-day terms of imprisonment for contempt.

READ POST "Consecutive Sentences for Criminal Contempt (November 3, 2017)"

When a court is considering whether to hold a party in civil contempt for the failure to comply with provisions in a child custody order, must the court inform that parent that he has the right to a court-appointed attorney if he wants an attorney and is unable to afford one?

The court of appeals recently held that the answer to that question must be determined on a “case-by-case basis” with appointed counsel being required only “where assistance of counsel is necessary for the adequate presentation of the merits, or to otherwise insure fundamental fairness.”

READ POST "Right to Counsel in Civil Contempt Proceeding for Violation of Custody Order (August 25, 2017)"

In an earlier post about high-profile trials, I touched on a trial judge’s authority to restrict photos, audio, video, and broadcast of all or parts of an open court proceeding.  To sum it up, the court has broad discretion to restrict dissemination of the proceedings in order to protect the integrity of the process. And under the right circumstances someone who violates the court’s directive can be punished.

But what about another high-profile trial issue:  When may a judge prevent people from reporting on or talking publicly about the case?  Or punish a person for doing so?

Earlier this week, a spectator at Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial was found guilty of contempt of court for posting recordings to YouTube of the closing arguments.  A Pennsylvania trial court judge sentenced the spectator to 50 hours of community service for her actions.  She admitted she violated a court order, but apparently she had been willing to take the risk.  According to ABC News, she “viewed Cosby’s celebrated sexual assault trial as the ‘one time’ she might produce a viral online video.” Pennsylvania courts have some pretty strict rules about recording trials. For this high-profile case in particular, though, the court had also entered a specific decorum order barring any recording or any communication from any device within the courtroom.

Of course, all this happened in the context of Pennsylvania court rules. So let’s look at whether a smartphone-wielding spectator in a North Carolina trial (civil or criminal) could be subject to a contempt order for similar behavior.  I believe the answer is yes, under the right circumstances.

Effective January 19, 2017, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) adopted a final rule titled “Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs.” 81 Federal Register 93492 (Dec. 20, 2016). This rule mandates numerous changes to the policies and procedures of state child support enforcement programs, but one change of particular importance to state trial courts involves the use of contempt procedures to enforce child support obligations. According to the Comments to the new rules, the change in the federal regulations regarding the use of contempt is intended to ensure that the “constitutional principles articulated in Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011)[addressing the rights of obligors in child support contempt proceedings], are carried out in the child support program, that child support case outcomes are just and comport with due process, and that enforcement proceedings are cost-effective and in the best interest of the child.” 81 FR at 93532.

READ POST "New Regulations Regarding Contempt in IV-D Child Support Cases (June 30, 2017)"

  **UPDATE: Effective July 21, 2017, Session Law 2017-158 expands the clerk’s civil contempt authority. The clerk now has the authority to exercise civil contempt in any instance when the […]