Sheridan Nichols(formerly Crockett) v. Richard David Crockett, Jr.
E2016-00885-COA-R3-CV
Tenn. Ct. App.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Mother and Father divorced; their parenting plan (modified May 2011) prohibited unwarranted derogatory remarks about one parent in the presence of the children (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-6-101 requirement).
- Father filed a Motion and then an Amended Motion for criminal contempt after a June 9, 2015 deposition where Mother, when played an audio recording, admitted making disparaging remarks to the children and discussing parental alienation with oldest son Tripp.
- The Amended Motion included a "Contempt Warning" and sought criminal sanctions (10 days jail per violation) and attorney’s fees; it did not initially specify exact dates/locations for all alleged acts but a Supplemental Brief later supplied more detail and quoted Mother’s deposition.
- At the Sept. 17, 2015 hearing Mother testified under oath, admitted to the remarks (corroborated by an audio recording) and admitted showing/ discussing parental alienation materials; the trial court convicted her of two counts of criminal contempt and sentenced her to 20 days (24 hours to serve, remainder suspended conditioned on counseling).
- A later motion alleged post-hearing remarks; the court reinstated an additional 24 hours (total 48 hours served). The court also awarded Father $4,941.15 in attorney’s fees for prosecuting contempt.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the criminal contempt convictions but reversed the award of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Nichols' Argument | Crockett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Rule 42(b)(1)(C) notice (essential facts) | Notice failed to specify dates/locations, number of counts, and extent of jeopardy | Amended motion, supplemental brief and deposition quotes provided essential facts, counts, and statutory punishment notice | Notice was sufficient under Rule 42(b)(1)(C); trial court correctly denied dismissal |
| Requirement of corroboration for Mother's admissions (corpus delicti/ trustworthiness) | Conviction for parental-alienation count rested solely on Mother’s admissions and required independent corroboration | Mother made sworn, in-court admissions and deposition admissions; plus audio and Facebook post corroborated conduct | Sworn in-court admissions need no independent corroboration; even if required, deposition, audio, and other evidence sufficiently corroborated conviction |
| Award of attorney’s fees to prevailing movant in criminal contempt | (Mother) Fees not recoverable in criminal contempt absent statutory authority | (Father) Sought fees as part of punishment and requested them in pleadings | Court held no statutory authority permits awarding attorney’s fees for prosecuting criminal contempt; award reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt | (argued only re: parental-alienation count) admissions insufficient without corroboration | Audio recording, deposition, in-court admissions, and Facebook post established guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Convictions affirmed (audio and admissions supported disparaging-comments count; admissions and corroboration supported parental-alienation count) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2014) (in-court sworn statements need no independent corroboration; corpus delicti rule and modified trustworthiness standard)
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1954) (extrajudicial confessions are more suspect than sworn in-court admissions)
- Watts v. Watts, 519 S.W.3d 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (no statutory authority to award attorney’s fees as punishment in criminal contempt)
- Cable v. Clemmons, 36 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. 2001) (courts cannot impose punishment beyond statutory limits)
- Ahern v. Ahern, 15 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2000) (criminal contempt is punitive and not remedial)
- Reed v. Hamilton, 39 S.W.3d 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (describing the punitive nature and purpose of criminal contempt)