Amos v. Commonwealth, 740 S.E.2d 43

This case asks whether a litigant held in summary contempt can raise certain arguments on appeal and whether summary contempt was properly exercised.
Amos and her estranged husband shared custody of their son amid hostility including prior violence and a restraining order, with the husband under a probation regime requiring good behavior.
In Oct. 2010, Amos wrote a letter to the Commonwealth’s Attorney (copied to the court) alleging violations of the restraining order and seeking help.
At a rule-to-show-cause hearing, Amos testified about threats; a sergeant testified with a recording that supported the husband’s account; Amos’s testimony was contradicted.
The court found Amos in summary contempt, jailed her for ten days, remanded her to custody, and set a $10,000 bail; she did not object at the time; she later filed a motion to vacate and a notice of appeal.
The appellate court ultimately held that Amos’s arguments were not procedurally defaulted and that summary contempt was improper, reversing the contempt judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amos’s appellate arguments were procedurally defaulted	Amos had no opportunity to object at the time; §8.01-384(A) protects against prejudice on appeal	Commonwealth argues that Amos could have objected via motion to reconsider	Amos’s arguments were not procedurally defaulted
Whether summary contempt was appropriate given due process	Summary contempt was inappropriate because essential elements depended on statements by others	Court could summarily punish for contempt in limited, immediate circumstances	Summary contempt was not appropriate; judgment reversed
Effect of failure to rule on motion to reconsider	Code §8.01-384(A) allows appeal despite no ruling if no opportunity to object	Failure to obtain ruling precludes appellate review under Rule 5A:18	Even if no contemporaneous objection, failure to obtain ruling on reconsideration does not foreclose review; court still reversed on merits

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. Supreme Court 1948) (due process limits on summary contempt; only narrow exception when all elements are observed in open court)
Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (U.S. Supreme Court 1888) (summary contempt limited to immediate circumstances to prevent disruption)
Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 (Va. 2010) (summary contempt; due process; where elements observed by court depend on others’ statements)
Nusbaum v. Berlin, 273 Va. 385 (Va. 2007) (waiver of due process objections in summary contempt; saving provisions of 8.01-384(A))
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 988 (Va. App. 1992) (exceptional rule interpretation; good-cause and ends-of-justice concepts)