State v. Mason
2021 UT App 41
| Utah Ct. App. | 2021Background
- At a post-divorce relocation hearing, the judge announced no talking and then, after issuing an adverse ruling to Mason, said “we are adjourned.”
- Immediately after the announcement (and while the judge remained on the bench), Mason called the judge a “disingenuous, intellectual liar” and continued making disrespectful comments despite repeated instructions to stop; part of the hearing recording was briefly turned off.
- The judge found Mason in direct (summary) criminal contempt under Utah Code § 78B-6-301(1) (disorderly behavior while holding court) and § 78B-6-301(5) (disobedience of a court order), sentenced him to 48 hours in jail, then suspended the balance and released him the next day.
- Mason appealed, arguing the appeal was moot, that he was denied the right to counsel, that his statements occurred after adjournment so could not be contempt, and that the court’s order to stop talking was unclear.
- The Court of Appeals held the appeal was not moot (possible collateral consequences), rejected the right-to-counsel claim for summary contempt, and affirmed contempt under both statutory grounds (or at least under § 301(1)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mason) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Completed jail time moots appeal | Conviction may have collateral consequences; not moot | Not moot — possible collateral effects (e.g., custody) prevent mootness |
| Right to appointed counsel in summary contempt | Entitled to counsel; court failed to advise/appoint counsel | Summary contempt exception permits immediate sanction without counsel | No constitutional right to counsel for direct summary contempt committed in presence of court |
| Whether contempt occurred after adjournment (§ 78B-6-301(1)) | Adjournment meant judge was no longer "holding court," so comments not within statute | Judge remained on bench and Mason remained in courtroom; conduct disrupted proceeding | Court rejects formalistic adjournment argument; conduct occurred while judge "holding court" and was contemptuous |
| Clarity of order to stop talking (§ 78B-6-301(5)) | Initial order limited to no talking between parties, so not a clear command to Mason to stop | Judge later instructed Mason to stop and he disobeyed; conduct continued even after custody | Instruction to stop was sufficiently clear; contempt for disobedience sustained (and any error harmless given § 301(1)) |
Key Cases Cited
- International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (criminal contempt is a crime requiring constitutional protections)
- Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517 (1925) (summary contempt for conduct in judge’s presence may be punished without counsel)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (distinguishes summary contempt from other contempt prosecutions; cites Cooke)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (constitutional protections apply to nonsummary criminal contempt)
- Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (right to counsel when imprisonment is authorized absent a valid waiver)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (courtroom decorum and sanctions for disruptive behavior)
- Gardiner v. York, 233 P.3d 500 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (criminal contempt not moot if collateral consequences possible)
- State v. Legg, 417 P.3d 592 (Utah 2018) (mootness reviewed de novo)
- Robinson v. City Court, 185 P.2d 256 (Utah 1947) (contempt conviction reversed where judge had already adjourned)
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (elements for contempt based on disobedience: knowledge, ability, and intentional refusal)