Morris v. State, 2017 Ark. 157

Jimmy C. Morris, defense counsel for Demarcus Veasey, was ordered to be in chambers at 8:30 a.m. for a first-degree murder trial set to begin at 9:00 a.m.; he arrived at 9:08 a.m.
Morris had dropped his eight-year-old daughter at summer camp in Little Rock that morning and said he and his assistant tried to call the court but could not due to alleged poor cell service.
Because Morris was not present at 9:03 a.m., the court informed and dismissed the jury panel; the trial was delayed and later reset.
The circuit court found Morris in criminal contempt for willful disobedience of its scheduling order and imposed a $4,000 fine (no jail), payable within 90 days.
Morris appealed, arguing lack of willfulness and that the $4,000 fine was grossly excessive and exceeded statutory limits for contempt.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the contempt finding but reduced the fine to $2,000; two justices would instead limit the fine to $500.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morris willfully disobeyed the court’s scheduling order (criminal contempt)	Court/State: Morris consciously chose insufficient time to travel and thus willfully violated the order	Morris: tardiness due to childcare and attempted calls; no intent to disobey	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports willfulness; failure was from poor planning, not emergency
Whether the $4,000 fine was excessive or beyond statutory limits	Court/State: inherent contempt power permits punishment beyond statutory misdemeanor cap; fine aimed to vindicate court authority	Morris: contempt classified as Class C misdemeanor with $500 statutory max; $4,000 excessive and unsupported by restitution evidence	Modified: fine reduced to $2,000 (majority); two justices would cap at $500 due to statutory limits and lack of restitution proof

Perroni v. State, 358 Ark. 17 (evidence standard for contempt review)
Etoch v. Simes, 340 Ark. 449 (contempt review principles)
Johnson v. Johnson, 343 Ark. 186 (court’s inherent contempt power not limited by statute)
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 295 Ark. 211 (legislature cannot abridge contempt power)
Carle v. Burnett, 311 Ark. 477 (modification of contempt punishment justified)
McCullough v. State, 353 Ark. 362 (purpose of contempt to uphold court dignity and allow modification)
Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137 (criminal contempt principles)
Valley v. State, 2016 Ark. 443 (example of contempt fine and restitution ordering)