State v. Frazier, 2017 Ohio 7221

Smith was subpoenaed to testify in a felony assault case against Forrest Frazier but failed to appear; the State dismissed Frazier's case and charged Smith with contempt for disobeying the subpoena.
At an initial appearance Smith asked for counsel; the court set a contempt hearing for the next day (about 24 hours later).
At the hearing Smith was unrepresented and told the court he could not use his usual lawyer because the lawyer had represented Frazier.
The court proceeded without formally advising Smith of his right to counsel or obtaining an on-the-record waiver, then found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail, a $250 fine, plus costs.
Smith appealed, arguing denial of due process, denial of the right to counsel, insufficient time to prepare, denial of jury trial, and inability to call witnesses.

Issue	Smith's Argument	State/Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith was denied the right to counsel in the contempt hearing	Smith argued he requested counsel and was not given adequate time or a proper waiver was not obtained	State argued Smith waived counsel by not explicitly requesting more time or asking for court-appointed counsel	Court held the proceeding was criminal contempt and the trial court failed to inform Smith of his right to counsel or obtain a knowing, voluntary waiver; reversal and remand for a new hearing
Whether the contempt was criminal or civil in nature	Smith contended protections for criminal contempt applied	State treated proceeding as summary enforcement of subpoena	Court found the sanction unconditional jail and fine intended to punish and vindicate court authority, so proceeding was criminal
Whether a waiver of counsel can be inferred from silence on the record	Smith argued waiver was not shown	State argued omission showed waiver	Court held waiver cannot be presumed from a silent record; the court must offer counsel and secure an intelligent waiver
Whether other due process rights (time to prepare, subpoena witnesses, jury trial) were violated	Smith claimed insufficient time and denied other procedural rights	State did not prevail on these as primary; focused on counsel waiver	Court did not reach these claims after finding counsel violation and remanded for new hearing

Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (criminal contempt requires many constitutional safeguards)
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (waiver of counsel will not be presumed from silent record; must be intelligent and understanding)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (due process in contempt: notice, opportunity to defend, counsel, witnesses)
Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509 (explaining civil v. criminal contempt purposes)
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (criminal contempt vindicates court authority; unconditional jail sentence typical)
Pugh v. Pugh, 15 Ohio St.3d 136 (distinguishing civil contempt as enforcement/compensatory sanction)