Brittany Brown v. State
2017 WY 45
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Brittany Brown was charged in district court with indirect criminal contempt for allegedly violating a juvenile-court Adjudication and Temporary Disposition Order (failure to check in weekly with juvenile probation, failure to cooperate, lack of telephone service, and alleged supervision failures).
- The district attorney filed a motion and affidavit and the district court issued an Order to Show Cause referencing the juvenile order but did not include or quote the underlying juvenile order in the record.
- Brown entered a conditional nolo contendere plea reserving several pretrial issues; the district court summarily denied her pending motions and sentenced her to 10 days (suspended with probation conditions).
- Brown appealed; the Wyoming Supreme Court converted the conditional-plea appeal into a writ of review to resolve legal questions about jurisdiction and due process.
- The court held that district courts have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal contempt arising from juvenile-court orders, but reversed and remanded because Brown was denied due process: the Order to Show Cause lacked essential factual detail and the district court refused defense counsel access to the juvenile file containing the order alleged to have been violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of conditional plea | Brown reserved pretrial issues in writing and sought appellate review | State: some reserved issues are non-dispositive, so the conditional plea is invalid | Court declined to dismiss appeal on that ground and converted appeal to writ of review (addressed merits) |
| Jurisdiction to hear juvenile-origin contempt in district court | Juvenile court has contempt power; Brown argued district court lacked jurisdiction | State: district court has general jurisdiction over criminal contempt and may hear such matters | Held: juvenile courts have contempt power but jurisdiction is not exclusive; district courts have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal contempt arising from juvenile proceedings |
| Adequacy of Order to Show Cause (notice of contempt charge) | Order did not state essential facts or quote the juvenile order; thus insufficient notice to prepare defense | State: motion, affidavit, and order collectively provided fair notice | Held: Order to Show Cause was deficient — it failed to identify the specific terms of the juvenile order and the factual basis for some alleged violations, violating due process |
| Defense counsel access to juvenile file | Defense counsel needed access to juvenile file (client is party) to prepare defense; denial prevented effective preparation | State: confidentiality statutes and that Brown (as party) had presumptive access; or disclosure issues belong in juvenile court | Held: district court should have allowed access (or required DA to authorize disclosure); confidentiality statute permits disclosure when action is brought in a court of public record; denial compounded the notice/due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re BD, 226 P.3d 272 (Wyo. 2010) (juvenile court may punish contempt; indirect criminal contempt must be instituted and conducted as a separate criminal action and W.R.Cr.P. 42 procedures apply)
- Walters v. State, 197 P.3d 1273 (Wyo. 2008) (conditional pleas invalid if any reserved issue is non-dispositive)
- Matthews v. State, 322 P.3d 1279 (Wyo. 2014) (requirements for valid conditional plea)
- Weidt v. State, 312 P.3d 1035 (Wyo. 2013) (elements of criminal contempt for disobedience of a court order: reasonably specific order, violation, and willfulness)
- In Interest of C.N., 816 P.2d 1282 (Wyo. 1991) (juvenile court contempt proceedings)
- In Interest of Bickerstaff, 950 P.2d 46 (Wyo. 1997) (juvenile court found party in criminal contempt)