State v. Hahn, COA23-238, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Sept. 3, 2024)

In this Harnett County case, defendant appealed the trial court order finding him in direct criminal contempt, arguing that his actions did not represent a contemptuous act. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the order. 

In October of 2022, defendant was summoned for jury duty at the Harnett County Courthouse; during this time, a local emergency order allowed presiding judges to decide whether masks were required in their courtrooms. When defendant assembled with other jurors in the jury assembly room, a court employee told him to wear a mask. Defendant refused, and he was then removed from the jury assembly room and taken to a courtroom in front of the judge. Defendant again declined to wear a mask, even after the judge informed him it was a requirement and that if he refused he would be subject to contempt of court. The judge entered an order finding that defendant refused to wear a mask after being ordered to do so three times and imposed a 24-hour jail sentence. 

The exclusive grounds for criminal contempt are outlined in G.S. 5A-11, and “direct” criminal contempt is defined in G.S. 5A-13(a). Here, the trial court’s order pointed to G.S. 5A-11(a)(1)-(2), finding that defendant’s actions interrupted the trial court's proceedings and impaired the respect due its authority. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that defendant “was not a participant in ongoing proceedings in a courtroom,” and “the judge summoned Defendant from the jury assembly room to his courtroom.” Slip Op. at 9. The court saw no disruption in defendant’s actions, noting he responded to the judge’s inquiries and “was respectful to the trial court.” Id. This led the court to conclude defendant’s refusal “was not a contemptuous act.” Id.

The court then moved to the State’s arguments that G.S. 5A-11(a)(3) or (7) applied, considering whether defendant could be held in contempt “for willful disobedience of the trial court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction pursuant to a valid local emergency order.” Id. at 10. This required the court to consider the validity of the local emergency order, and the court concluded “[t]he authority underlying the local emergency order at issue was revoked” as the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court revoked the emergency directive authorizing local officials to address face coverings in June of 2021. Id. at 12. 

Finally, the court determined defendant’s actions were not willful, noting “a misapplication of the local emergency order served as the impetus of the conflict” as the local order made masks optional in meeting rooms, and defendant had not yet been called to the courtroom to serve as a juror. Id. at 13. The court explained “[t]here are no findings, nor evidence in the record sufficient to support findings, that Defendant could have known his discussion with the courthouse employee in the jury assembly room might directly interrupt proceedings or interfere with the court’s order or business.” Id. at 14.  

Judge Griffin concurred in the result by separate opinion, and would have held that defendant’s actions were not likely to interrupt or interfere with matters before the trial court.