State v. Phillips, 230 N.C. App. 382

Phillips, an attorney, faced a criminal contempt proceeding in Stanly County; the 5 December 2012 order failed to specify the standard of proof used.
The 9 July 2012 district court ordered disposition of seized physical evidence in a case involving Phillips's client, with both civil and criminal matters referenced on the same proposed order.
The civil case was dismissed, but the criminal trespass charge remained on appeal; Phillips prepared an order seeking return of a cell phone seized during the criminal investigation.
Judge Barrett stayed the disposition of the evidence and ordered Phillips to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for ex parte submissions using a civil docket number for a criminal matter.
The trial court later found Phillips in contempt, censured him, and fined $500, but did not indicate that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied to the findings.
The appellate court reversed, holding the lack of a stated standard of proof rendered the contempt order fatally deficient under Cogdell and related precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 5 December 2012 contempt order states the proper standard of proof.	Phillips contends the order lacked the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.	State/Trial court did not specify the standard of proof (no adequate counter-argument in opinion).	Order reversed for not applying the proper standard.

In re Contempt Proceedings Against Cogdell, 183 N.C. App. 286 (2007) (requires finding facts beyond a reasonable doubt in summary contempt orders)
State v. Ford, 164 N.C. App. 566 (2004) (contempt orders defective when the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard is not stated)
State v. Verbal, 41 N.C. App. 306 (1979) (implies standard of proof must be indicated in findings)