In re McDaniel
115614
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Terra McDaniel was on a jury panel Dec. 7–8, 2015; she reported Dec. 7 but did not appear at 8:45 a.m. on Dec. 8 due to childcare issues and arrived about 2:15 p.m.
- The jury clerk reported McDaniel called and was allegedly "yelling" and refused to come in; McDaniel says she asked to speak to a supervisor and explained childcare constraints.
- Judge Magana ordered McDaniel to a contempt hearing Dec. 18, 2015; at the hearing he announced a finding of direct criminal contempt and imposed a six‑month controlling sentence with 30 days to serve immediately (work release authorized).
- A journal entry was filed the same day concluding direct criminal contempt and referring to the hearing transcript rather than explicitly stating the conduct and McDaniel’s offered defense.
- McDaniel appealed; there was a procedural tussle over docketing the appeal but the Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction and addressed the merits.
Issues
| Issue | McDaniel's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction | Timely filed notice of appeal; counsel’s docketing error should not bar review | Appeal should be dismissed for failure to follow reinstatement rule | Court found jurisdiction proper because statutory notice was timely and appellate rules are not jurisdictional in this context |
| Direct vs. indirect contempt | Tardiness occurred outside judge's presence and did not disrupt proceedings; thus not direct contempt | Jenkins hybrid approach permits treating absence+unsatisfactory explanation as direct contempt | Tardiness was not direct contempt; at most indirect — judge lacked personal observation and proceedings were not disrupted |
| Due process / procedural safeguards | Summary punishment deprived her of rights: counsel, confront witnesses, call witnesses, avoid self‑incrimination, evidentiary protections | Contends hybrid approach and summary sanction justified | Because contempt was indirect (or not proven as direct), McDaniel was denied required procedural protections; summarily punishing her violated due process |
| Journal entry compliance (K.S.A. 20‑1203) | Journal entry failed to "specify" conduct and "state" defense, improperly incorporated transcript | Journal entry’s reference to record sufficed | Journal entry was deficient and void for failing to explicitly specify the contemptuous conduct and set forth the defense offered |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (distinguishes direct contempt observed by the judge from contempt proven only by others’ testimony; sets due process protections for indirect contempt)
- State v. Jenkins, 263 Kan. 351 (Kan. 1997) (adopts hybrid approach permitting summary treatment where both misconduct and unsatisfactory explanation occur in judge’s presence)
- State v. Williams, 28 Kan. App. 2d 97 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000) (refuses to treat juror misconduct as direct contempt where judge did not personally observe conduct and trial was not disrupted)
- Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280 (Kan. 2009) (K.S.A. 20‑1203 is jurisdictional; direct contempt judgments must specify conduct and defendant’s defense)