Calling BS

History is made in a decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court

For the first time in Rhode Island Supreme Court history, this case was heard remotely by means of the WebEx platform.

The case involves a criminal contempt imposed at a sentencing by the judge in response to a remark by the defendant

Based on all of those reasons, the trial justice deviated from the sentencing benchmarks and sentenced defendant to thirty-five years at the Adult Correctional Institutions, with twenty-three years to serve and the balance suspended, with probation. The following exchange then occurred between defendant and the trial justice:

“THE DEFENDANT: That’s justice?
“* * *
“THE DEFENDANT: That’s bullshit.
“THE COURT: Excuse me.
“THE DEFENDANT: That’s not justice.
“THE COURT: Excuse me. I am adding to that. I find you in contempt of court, and I sentence you to an additional three years at the Adult Correctional Institutions to be served consecutive to the sentence I just imposed. One moment. I have to articulate it.

THE DEFENDANT: It’s all lies.
“THE COURT: Criminal contempt committed in the presence of
the [c]ourt.
“THE DEFENDANT: How would you feel?”

Then

The trial justice then gave defendant the opportunity to address the court regarding her contempt finding before she executed the sentence. The defendant then apologized to the trial justice, stating: “I’m sorry, Your Honor. I didn’t mean any disrespect.” Additionally, defendant stated that he did not feel as though he was “treated properly in this courtroom.” The trial justice stated that defendant’s apology earned him a year off his contempt sentence.

The court here

After our careful review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion. Indeed, this Court has stated that “not every impolite or vulgar remark suffices to justify contempt proceedings[.]” Price, 66 A.3d at 419 (quoting United States v. Marshall, 371 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2004)). However, while acknowledging that this is a close case, it is the trial justice who “has had an opportunity to appraise witness demeanor and to take into account other realities that cannot be grasped from a reading of a cold record.” Silva v. Laverty, 203 A.3d 473, 481 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Voccola v. Forte, 139 A.3d 404, 413 (R.I. 2016)). It is clear from the record that defendant, unhappy with his sentence, acted out in the presence of the court, and that his comments were specifically directed at the court and not mere sorrowful remarks at the severity of his sentence. Therefore, the trial justice was clearly within her authority to summarily punish defendant “to prevent demoralization of the court’s authority[.]” See Price, 66 A.3d at 419 (quoting Nestel, 513 A.2d at 29). 

But the sentence summarily imposed cannot stand on this record

we remand the case to the Superior Court for resentencing. On remand, the trial justice may reduce the defendant’s sentence to a period of six months or less, or, in the alternative, if the trial justice determines the defendant’s conduct warrants more than a six-month sentence, a criminal complaint or information shall be filed by the Attorney General, and, if the defendant so chooses, a jury trial shall be conducted to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence with respect to the criminal contempt charge.

(Mike Frisch)