State v Evans

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA08-293 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 October 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Columbus County No. 07 CRS 2989 LARRY EVANS, JR. Court of Appeals Appeal by Defendant from Judgment of criminal contempt entered 14 August 2007 by Judge Gregory A. Weeks in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 2008. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General LaToya B. Powell, for the State. Slip Opinion Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for Defendant. ARROWOOD, Judge. Larry Evans criminal contempt. Jr. (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of On 14 August 2007, in Columbus County Superior Court, the Honorable Gregory Weeks summarily found Defendant in direct criminal contempt and Judge Weeks sentenced Defendant and ordered him incarcerated for thirty (30) days. This punishment was later reduced to three (3) days incarceration. Defendant appeals. -2The relevant facts are: On the morning of 14 August 2007, Defendant was walking out of the Columbus County Courthouse when he was approached by his former probation Officer Eric Lammonds (Lammonds). Lammonds, who had previously been a probation officer for Defendant, mistook Defendant for a current probationer of his with an outstanding parole warrant. Lammonds attempted to stop Defendant in order to speak with him. As soon as Lammonds approached, Defendant refused to identify himself, turned away and started cussing. In response, Lammonds grabbed Defendant and put him against a nearby cement wall. continued using profanity. Defendant jerked away and Lammonds thereafter confirmed Defendant s identity from a bystander, who told him that Defendant was not the person he was looking for. Defendant s apologize. identity, Lammonds After Lammonds confirmed stepped away and attempted to Defendant continued cussing and threatening. Judge Weeks heard this commotion immediately outside the window from his chambers. At the time, Judge Weeks was beginning the second day of the jury selection process for the controversial case of State v. Troy. Because the case involved racial overtones and was the subject of significant media publicity, the court expected the jury selection process to be a challenging one. Judge Weeks heard Defendant using profanity and speaking in a loud voice outside his chambers and in close proximity to where the jurors were being attempting sequestered. to talk to Judge Weeks Defendant also and to observed calm Lammonds him down. Subsequently, Judge Weeks held Defendant in criminal contempt of -3court, concluding that the commotion which the Defendant created was loud enough for the jurors to hear and that his conduct was likely to interrupt or interfere with matters that were presently before the court. Standard of Review Defendant argues that a de novo standard of review is applied to a finding of criminal contempt. Defendant further notes that when reviewing a finding of contempt de novo, the Court assesses the sufficiency of the evidence under the constitutional requirement that the evidence must be sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant s assessment of this Court s standard of review is incomplete. The standard of review of an appeal from a trial court's finding of criminal contempt is well-established. While conclusions of law are reviewable de novo, the findings of fact are not. On See State v. Ford, 164 N.C. App. 566, 596 S.E.2d 846 (2004). appellant review of a contempt order, the trial judge s findings of fact are conclusive . . . when supported by any competent evidence and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing on their sufficiency. O Briant v. O Briant, 313 N.C. 432, 436-37, 329 S.E.2d 370, 374 (1985). In the instant case, therefore, the appropriate standard of review is whether or not there was competent evidence to support the trial court s findings of fact and whether those findings of fact support a conclusion that Defendant was in criminal contempt. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings -4of fact, and that the findings support the conclusion that Defendant was in criminal contempt. Criminal Contempt Defendant argues the trial court erred in finding him in direct criminal contempt because his actions were not willful and were not committed with the willful intent to interrupt or interfere with court proceedings. Criminal contempt is defined as the [w]illful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court's lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution. Stat. § 5A-11(a)(3)(2007). N.C. Gen. Direct criminal contempt is committed within the sight or hearing of a presiding judicial official[,] N.C. Gen. contempt Stat. arises § 5A-13(a)(1)(2007), from matters not while indirect occurring in or criminal near the presence of the court, but which tend to obstruct or defeat the administration of justice. State v. Simon, 185 N.C. App. 247, 251, 648 S.E.2d 853, 855 (2007) (quoting Atassi v. Atassi, 122 N.C. App. 356, 361, 470 S.E.2d 59, 62 (1996)), disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 702, 653 S.E.2d 158 (2007); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-13(b)(2007). The word willful when used in a criminal statute means that the act was conducted purposely and deliberately in violation of law and without authority, justification, or excuse. State v. Chriscoe, 85 N.C. App. 155, 354 S.E.2d 289 (1987). The term implies the act is done knowingly and of stubborn purpose or resistance. McKillop v. Onslow County, 139 N.C. App. 53, 61-62, 532 S.E.2d 594, 600 (2000); see also Clayton v. Clayton, 54 N.C. -5App. 612, 284 S.E.2d 125 (1981), and In re Hege, 205 N.C. 625, 172 S.E. 345 (1933). Willfulness also connotes a bad faith disregard for authority and the law. Forte v. Forte, 65 N.C. App. 615, 616, 309 S.E.2d 729, 730 (1983). In this willfully. case, He there willfully originally approached. is no cussed doubt that Defendant acted at Lammonds when he was At trial, Defendant testified as follows: COURT: Do you want to respond by way of explanation and justification with regard to your conduct, not what [Lammonds] did, but what you did? DEFENDANT: Okay, I was wrong I was cussing some but he had hurt me when he put me up against that wall right there. Defendant s conduct clearly conveys stubborn resistance and general disregard for the law implied by the term willful. Defendant could have easily revealed his identity to Lammonds and prevented the ensuing altercation. Instead of simply telling Lammonds who he was, Defendant shouted profanities. Even after he found himself pinned to the wall, Defendant refused to reveal his identity. We find that Defendant s disrespect and resistance in giving his name to the probation officer constituted willfulness in the context of criminal contempt. Defendant mischaracterizes his altercation with Lammonds as an unlawful arrest. However, Defendant was not arrested. Moreover, an unlawful arrest would not excuse Defendant s loud cursing by Lammonds. Lammonds merely approached Defendant and ultimately engaged in an altercation with him. None of Lammond s actions come close to the definition of arrest. Even assuming arguendo that the -6officer was attempting to make an unlawful arrest, Defendant may not exercise a legal right in a way that a court of justice. interrupts a sitting of In re Hennis, 6 N.C. App. 683, 688, 171 S.E.2d 211, 214 (1969), rev d on other grounds, 276 N.C. 571, 173 S.E.2d 785 (1970). Defendant also argues that his actions were not committed with the willful intent to interrupt or interfere with court proceedings because he had no knowledge that court proceedings were taking place. Defendant relies on Hennis, supra, where the Supreme Court reversed a finding of contempt because there was no evidence that petitioner had actual knowledge that court was in session or that his conduct was interfering with proceedings. The case sub judice, is distinguishable from Hennis. In Hennis the trial court had not made specific findings regarding the matter before the court. In contrast, the trial court in this case made specific findings regarding Defendant s conduct, giving specific details of the case, and further, there is evidence to support a finding that defendant knew court was in session. Defendant s willful intent to interfere with court proceedings can be inferred. State v. Warren, 313 N.C. 254, 262, 328 S.E.2d 256, 262 (1985) (stating that a defendant s intent is seldom demonstrable through direct inferred from circumstances). evidence and must ordinarily be Defendant was familiar with the criminal court system and should have known the importance of maintaining a level of decorum in and around the courthouse. More specifically, it can be inferred that Defendant should have known -7that the loud yelling of profanity outside of the courtroom and directly outside the judge s chambers would likely interrupt court proceedings, especially when he could have easily avoided confrontation by simply revealing his identity to the probation officer. Defendant further argues that he lacked the willful intent to interrupt or interfere with court proceedings because the record does not support the fact that proceedings had begun. But the fact that proceedings may not have actually begun for the day is irrelevant as the court was still in session for the week. See State v. Trent, 359 N.C. 583, 585, 614 S.E.2d 498, 499 (2005) (referring to a session of court as the typical one week assignments of judges within a six month judicial term). Moreover, the court was in the process of beginning the day s business: Prospective jurors were summoned for service that morning in two rooms awaiting the start of voir dire. Even if the court were not in session, a finding of criminal contempt would still be possible. Criminal contempt proceedings are those brought to preserve the power of the court, vindicate its dignity and punish for the disobedience of its processes. But, the disobedience of the court and its business can occur during recess or may not necessarily occur while the court is in session. State v. Reaves, 142 N.C. App. 629, 633, 544 S.E.2d 253, 256 (2001). Finally, Defendant argues the record is devoid of the particulars of the offense and contains only conclusions that Defendant s actions were contemptuous. Defendant relies on the -8case of Rose s Stores v. Tarrytown Center, 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E.2d 313 (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a civil contempt order because the trial court failed to specify the words, acts or gestures amounting to direct contempt, and when the record contain[ed] contemptuous[.] only conclusions that contemnor was Id. at 213, 154 S.E.2d at 318. Unlike the facts of the Rose s Stores case, however, the record of the instant case contains bountiful evidence of Defendant s specific words and acts that served as a basis for the trial court s finding of direct contempt. For instance, the record clearly mentions that Defendant created a commotion in front of the Columbus County Courthouse on the second day of a challenging jury selection process for a controversial local trial. The record also makes clear that Defendant used profanity, yelled loudly outside the judge s chambers and engaged in a verbal dispute with a probation officer. We find that the facts found by the trial court are supported by the evidence and that the facts found are sufficient to support a conclusion of contempt. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and JACKSON concur. Report per Rule 30(e).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.