Hammonds v. State
80 A.3d 698
Md.2013Background
- Hammonds, convicted April 23, 2010 for second-degree assault, received 10-year sentence with 18 months suspended and 3 years probation; standard condition required obedience to laws.
- State petitioned to revoke probation about a week after sentencing based on conduct in court and statements after sentencing.
- Probation revocation hearing (June 3, 2010) included Deputy Wilson’s testimony that Hammonds tore up his copy of probation papers while seated near the exit and made loud statements.
- Trial court found Hammonds in contempt and violated § 9-303(a) for threats directed at a witness; probation revoked.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; certiorari granted to address: (1) whether Hammonds was in direct criminal contempt; (2) whether § 9-303(a) requires direct communication of threats; (3) whether the revocation was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct contempt exists when conduct interrupts court proceedings | Hammonds tore papers after proceedings; no interruption observed | Contempt observed in presence of court; disrupts dignified conduct | Not proven; no interruption or wilful disruption established. |
| Whether § 9-303(a) requires threats to be communicated to the victim/witness | Threats must be communicated to victim/witness | Statute covers threats regardless of direct communication | Statute does not require direct communication; intent to retaliate suffices. |
| Whether revocation based on contempt and § 9-303(a) was proper | Probation revoked for valid § 9-303(a) violation and contempt | One ground (contempt) not sufficiently proven; revocation unsupported on that basis | Remanded for proceedings consistent with holding that contempt finding was insufficient; revoke solely under § 9-303(a) possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moosavi v. State, 355 Md. 651 (Md. 1999) (defines 'threat' as a communicated intent to inflict harm)
- Parker v. State, 189 Md.App. 474 (Md. 2009) (interprets 'threaten to harm' and retaliation elements; communication not required)
- Tracy v. State, 423 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (discusses § 9-302 vs § 9-303 timing before/after testimony)
- Mitchell v. State, 320 Md. 756 (Md. 1990) (discusses direct contempt and need for disruption)
- Gibson v. State, 328 Md. 687 (Md. 1992) (probation revocation standard: preponderance of evidence)
- Ashford v. State, 358 Md. 552 (Md. 2000) (direct criminal contempt; wilfulness required)