State v. Hammock

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 3574

Syllabus

CONTEMPT – R.C. 2705.01 – SUMMARY PUNISHMENT: Where defendant videotaped courtroom proceedings in violation of a local rule, and then denied that her phone was on to the trial court when questioned about her actions, causing the trial court to stop the proceedings to investigate, gain control of the courtroom, and enforce the local rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant in direct criminal contempt of court and summarily imposing punishment because defendant's conduct created a disturbance in the courtroom and posed an imminent threat to the administration of justice. [But see DISSENT: The trial court abused its discretion in summarily punishing defendant for contempt where the court did not find that defendant's conduct \created a disturbance\ and where defendant's conduct did not pose an imminent threat to the administration of justice and was not summarily punishable where defendant was not rude or disrespectful to the authority of the court and defendant's conduct did not delay the hearing or disrupt the courtroom proceedings.] The trial court abused its discretion in ordering the destruction of defendant's cellphone as punishment for contempt because the punishment was not reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the offense.