JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
I. Background
{¶ 1} Appellant Leif Christman was counsel for defendant Keanu Lanzy in this case. On July 19, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the states motion for bond revocation. At the beginning of the hearing, the court engaged in the following colloquy with Christman:
THE COURT: Are you vaccinated? Are you vaccinated?[1]
MR. CHRISTMAN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then why is your mask not on your face?
MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, I was trying to talk.
THE COURT: Is that some kind of loophole in the mask rule; take the mask off when youre speaking?
MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, I wanted you to be able to hear me better.
THE COURT: I can hear you fine. And I dont respect you — appreciate your disrespect of the code [sic].
(Tr. 6.)
{¶ 2} The state then argued its position regarding why the defendants bond should be revoked, and Christman argued against the bond revocation. (Tr. 6-18.) Following argument, the trial court denied the states motion. The judge and Christman then engaged in the following colloquy:
THE COURT: I do want to address Mr. Christmans mask wearing. Mr. Christman, you were here last week and — in the bailiff area, and my bailiff indicated that you were not wearing your mask then. Is that correct?
MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: That is correct?
MR. CHRISTMAN: It is correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHRISTMAN: I apologize.
THE COURT: Im finding you in contempt for your failure to wear a mask today and your failure to wear a mask last week. There are people on the floor who are immune-compromised who cannot make antibodies. There is an Administrative Order requiring all people entering the building to wear a mask. Court employees who have provided proof of vaccination do not have to wear a mask. Were in the middle of a public health crisis that hasnt been experienced in this country in over a century, and I find you to be in contempt, direct contempt. You can purge this contempt by providing this court with proof of vaccine within 45 days or pay [a] $1,000 fine. Good luck.
(Tr. 19-20.)
{¶ 3} After the hearing, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding Christman “in direct contempt of court for violating the mask guidelines and policies of the court of common pleas.” The court ruled that Christman could purge the finding of contempt by paying a $1,000 fine or providing proof of the COVID-19 vaccination within 45 days of the order. This appeal followed.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, Christman contends that the trial court erred in holding him in direct contempt. He concedes that the court correctly described the COVID-19 pandemic as “the worst public health crisis in this country in a century” and further, that there is a court order mandating the wearing of masks that cover ones nose and mouth while in the Justice Center. He contends that the court erred in finding him in contempt of court, however, because (1) his failure to wear a mask while addressing the court during the bond revocation hearing did not sufficiently impede the administration of justice so as to warrant a summary citation for direct contempt, and (2) although he admittedly did not wear a mask in the presence of the judges bailiff outside the judges chambers the week before the bond revocation hearing, this act could not serve as the basis for a finding of direct contempt because it occurred outside the presence of the judge. In his second assignment of error, Christman contends that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt without following the procedures set forth in R.C. 2705.03. We consider the assigned errors together because they are related.
{¶ 5} “Contempt of court may be generally defined as disobedience of a court order or conduct that brings the administration of justice into disrespect and impedes a courts ability to perform its functions.” State v. T.F., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011175, 2019-Ohio-1039, 2019 WL 1333120, ¶ 7. “The power to punish contumacious conduct — to ensure the effective administration of justice, to secure the dignity of the court, and to affirm the supremacy of the law — is inherent in a trial court, as well as derived from statute.” State v. Lowe, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170494, C-170495, C-170498, and C-170505, 2018-Ohio-3916, 2018 WL 4677449, ¶ 32, citing Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 15, 520 N.E.2d 1362 (1988).
{¶ 6} The determination of contempt is within the trial courts discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Cleveland v. Heben, 74 Ohio App.3d 568, 573, 599 N.E.2d 766 (8th Dist.1991); State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial courts decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 7} Contempt of court can be either “direct” or “indirect,” the difference based generally on whether the conduct occurs in the presence of the court or outside its presence. See, e.g., R.C. 2705.01 (Direct contempt occurs “in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice”); R.C. 2705.02 (setting forth examples of indirect contempt); In re Lands, 146 Ohio St. 589, 595, 67 N.E.2d 433 (1946) (“An indirect contempt is one committed outside the presence of the court but which also tends to obstruct the due and orderly administration of justice.”).
{¶ 8} Although direct contempt typically involves misconduct that takes place in the actual courtroom and in the actual presence of the trial judge, courts have at times found the concept of direct contempt to include misconduct occurring in the “constructive presence” of the court. See State ex rel. Seventh Urban, Inc. v. McFaul, 5 Ohio St.3d 120, 449 N.E.2d 445 (1983) (finding that an attorneys physical assault on the opposing party, where both were in the courtroom on court business, which occurred in the presence of court personnel before the judges entered the courtroom, constituted direct contempt in the constructive presence of the court). Id. at 122-123, 449 N.E.2d 445; see also T.F., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011175, 2019-Ohio-1039 at ¶ 10 (jurors conduct of bringing a newspaper article about the defendant to court and discussing the article with the other jurors was direct contempt because although it did not occur in the actual presence of the judge, it occurred in the jury room “near the presence of the court” and disrupted the administration of justice because it resulted in a mistrial).
{¶ 9} Nevertheless, as this court has stated:
Regardless of the classification of the contempt, where a judge has no personal knowledge of the alleged act of contempt and must rely on information provided by court personnel to establish contempt, “ ‘the procedure outlined in R.C. 2705.03, requiring a written charge, an adversary hearing upon the issues, and an opportunity for the accused to be represented by counsel, should be strictly adhered to.’ ” In re Chambers, 2019-Ohio-3596, 142 N.E.3d 1243, ¶ 32 (1st Dist. Hamilton), citing McFaul at 122 [449 N.E.2d 445]; see also State v. T.F., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011175, 2019-Ohio-1039 [2019 WL 1333120], ¶ 15 (“Where direct criminal contempt occurs not in the actual presence of the trial court judge but only in the constructive presence of the court, the alleged contemnor must be afforded due process * * *.”)
Parma v. Novak (In re Huth), 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108501, 2020-Ohio-3177, 2020 WL 2992108, ¶ 11.
{¶ 10} The trial judge found Christman in direct contempt for (1) not wearing a mask in the courtroom during the bond revocation hearing, and (2) not wearing a mask while in the bailiffs presence outside the judges chambers a week prior to the hearing. Because Christmans failure to wear a mask in the bailiffs presence outside the judges chambers did not occur in the judges presence and the judge therefore had no personal knowledge of the incident, the trial court was required to utilize the procedure set forth in R.C. 2705.03 if Christman were to be found in contempt of court for this violation of the courts administrative order.
2
Because the trial court did not afford Christman the due process protections of R.C. 2705.03 before summarily finding him in contempt for actions that occurred outside the judges presence, the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in contempt for not wearing a mask in the bailiffs presence.
{¶ 11} The trial court did not abuse its discretion, however, in finding Christman in contempt for not wearing his mask during the bond revocation hearing. R.C. 2705.01 empowers a court to summarily punish an offender. It states, “A court, or judge at chambers, may summarily punish a person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice.”
{¶ 12} Due process requires that two circumstances exist before a court may find and summarily punish direct contempt: (1) “[a] contumacious act committed in open court in the judges presence and immediate view that results in the judges personal knowledge and makes further evidence unnecessary for a summary finding of contempt,” and (2) “the contumacious act constitutes an imminent threat to the administration of justice that may result in demoralization of the courts authority unless the court imposes a summary contempt sanction.” In re Chambers, 1st Dist., 2019-Ohio-3596, 142 N.E.3d 1243, ¶ 26, citing Chinnock and Painter, The Law of Contempt of Court in Ohio, 34 U.Tol.L.Rev. 309, 321 (2003).
{¶ 13} The trial judge personally observed Christman not wearing his mask during the bond revocation hearing in contravention of the courts administrative order. And despite Christmans argument otherwise, his failure to wear a mask during the bond revocation hearing did indeed obstruct the courts administration of justice. The courts administrative order was designed to protect the health and safety of all participants in court proceedings — whether the judge, the parties, counsel, other court personnel, or jurors — during what Christman acknowledges is “the worst public health crisis in this country in a century.” (Appellants Brief, p. 7.) Putting courtroom participants at risk of contracting the highly contagious airborne COVID-19 disease by not wearing a mask as ordered is, as the state contends, the very “definition” of obstructing the administration of justice. Interference with the administration of justice is not limited solely to occasions where an individuals actions disrupt or effectively halt the courts proceedings, as Christman seems to argue. Although the bond revocation hearing proceeded despite Christmans failure to wear his mask, his conduct put the health of all the courtroom participants at risk, thereby presenting an “imminent threat” to the courts administration of justice, as well as to the courts authority. Furthermore, although some judges give a warning before finding someone in contempt, as Christman contends, there is no requirement that the court do so.
{¶ 14} Christmans conduct in not wearing his mask during the bond revocation hearing was in direct violation of the courts administrative order requiring him to do so. It occurred in the judges presence and interfered with the courts administration of justice. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in summarily finding Christman in direct contempt of court for that action.
{¶ 15} Although discretionary, the punishment for contempt should be “reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the offense.” Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 400 N.E.2d 386 at paragraph one of the syllabus. Because the $1,000 fine was based on two instances of contempt but we concluded that the court properly found Christman in contempt for only one instance of not wearing his mask, the matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of the appropriate amount of fine to be imposed for the single act.
{¶ 16} The first assignment of error is overruled; the second assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part.
{¶ 17} Judgment affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.
{¶ 18} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would reverse the trial courts decision finding Leif Christman in direct contempt of court for violating the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleass administrative order that imposed a mask mandate. I believe it was an abuse of discretion to render any finding of direct contempt upon the record presented.
{¶ 19} There is no question that the trial judge acted as a conscientious jurist in enforcing the administrative order. Without undermining the judges legitimate concern for the safety and health of those working and appearing in the Justice Center during the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am unable to find that Christmans conduct warranted a finding of direct contempt. I also believe the contempt finding should be reversed because it was premised, at least in part, on Christmans prior mask-wearing conduct that occurred outside the presence of the court. Also, I find the punishment imposed was unreasonable.
{¶ 20} The record reflects that at the beginning of the bond revocation hearing, the judge questioned why Christmans client did not appear on time for the proceeding when Christman had already checked in, informed the bailiff his client was parking his car, and indicated they were ready. Christman had his mask pulled down to his chin when speaking to the court. After asking Christman to sit down, the judge asked Christman why his mask was not on his face, and Christman responded that he wanted the court to hear him better.
3
While the better practice may have been to ask whether this was permissible in the judges courtroom, the judge likewise never informed Christman that the administrative order would be enforced within the judges courtroom.
4
Initially, the judge admonished Christman for failing to wear a mask over his mouth and nose while speaking before the court, and it seems Christman promptly complied as the proceeding continued uninterrupted.
{¶ 21} It was not until the conclusion of the bond-revocation proceeding, in a short exchange of words, that the trial judge found Christman to be in direct contempt of court. The judge stated that he wished to address Christmans mask wearing and began by stating the bailiff had informed him that Christman was not wearing his mask while in the bailiff area the previous week. Christman apologized; however, the judge was inclined to summarily find him in direct contempt for “your failure to wear a mask today and your failure to wear a mask last week.” But for the earlier incident that occurred outside the courtroom, it is certainly plausible that the judge would have given Christman no more than a warning and not have found Christman in contempt.
{¶ 22} Case law reflects a warning is commonly given before contemptuous conduct is found to occur.
5
As this court has previously recognized, “judges typically give a warning before finding someone in contempt.” Cleveland v. Bright, 2020-Ohio-5180, 162 N.E.3d 153, ¶ 55 (8th Dist.), citing In re Contempt of Huth, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108501, 2020-Ohio-3177, 2020 WL 2992108, ¶ 3 (trial court warned attorney she would be held in contempt if she continued to interrupt); In re Contempt of English, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90417, 2008-Ohio-3671, 2008 WL 2834082, ¶ 6 (trial court warned attorney before holding him in contempt); In re Contempt of Veneziano, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 78634, 2001 WL 1479232, 2 (Nov. 21, 2001) (juvenile court warned attorney she would be held in contempt if she continued to interrupt and instructed the attorney six times to stop raising her voice); State v. Lowe, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170494, C-170495, C-170498, and C-170505, 2018-Ohio-3916, 2018 WL 4677449, ¶ 35 (trial court gave contemnor multiple warnings before finding him in contempt); see also State v. Wilson, 30 Ohio St.2d 312, 313-314, 285 N.E.2d 38 (1972) (attorney disregarded trial courts repeated order); State v. Mick, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-16-074, 2017-Ohio-8922, 2017 WL 6209671, ¶ 7, 16 (attorney repeatedly disobeyed direct orders from the trial court); In re Contempt of Kafantaris, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 07-CO-28, 2009-Ohio-4814, 2009 WL 2917945, ¶ 2 (trial court warned defense counsel that failure to heed the courts warnings would result in contempt).
{¶ 23} Additionally, the trial judge imposed a punitive sanction by ordering Christman could purge the contempt by paying a $1,000 fine or by providing “proof of vaccine within 45 days.” See State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 207, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980) (allowing for a “conditional criminal contempt sanction”). I believe that the $1,000 fine was excessive and that requiring “proof of vaccine” to purge the contempt was unreasonable. In my view, the trial courts order effectively required Christman to obtain a vaccine to purge the contempt.
{¶ 24} Christman is not an individual who stormed into a courtroom defiantly deriding the mask mandate. He did not even berate the policies or restrictions regarding COVID in a political manifesto about government overreach or injustice. Christman was just a lawyer trying to make his best argument on behalf of a client who was under threat to have his bond revoked. He pulled his mask down because he wanted the court to clearly hear his argument. The record reflects that Christman was respectful of the courts authority, he apologized to the court, and the court proceeded with the due and orderly administration of justice. Yet, the trial judge rendered a finding of direct contempt. The judge referenced the public health crisis and immunocompromised persons, essentially equating Christmans transgression of the rule as an all-out attack on community safety.
{¶ 25} Upon my review, I believe that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Christman in direct contempt and that the punishment imposed was unreasonable. I would reverse the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 26} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Referring to whether Christman had received the COVID-19 vaccination.
2
. R.C. 2705.03 requires a written charge, an adversary hearing upon the issues, and an opportunity for the accused to be represented by counsel.
3
. Though there is no direct evidence in the record regarding possible relaxed mask usage under the administrative order, it is no surprise that appellants counsel noted his observations of this practice being permitted in some courtrooms, so long as safe distancing measures were in place.
4
. Christman acknowledges there was an administrative order that mandated the wearing of masks in the Justice Center. The administrative order was issued by the common pleas courts administrative judge; it was not a judicial order issued by the trial judge.
5
. Whether a warning has been provided is certainly a factor that may be considered in determining whether counsels behavior rises to the level of direct contempt.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, J., CONCURS;
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)