State v. RevelsÂ
2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1246
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- RST Global Communications (RST) obtained a TRO and later a preliminary injunction ordering defendant Revels (30% member and former operations head) to return company property, stop using company accounts/cards, reroute company mail, and provide login/passwords after RST discovered misappropriation of funds and other misconduct.
- Revels retained RST property at his home, continued business communications for RST, refused to turn in cards, and did not reroute mail despite repeated demands and actions by RST members.
- RST filed for a TRO (April 30, 2015); TROs issued May 5 and May 8, 2015; preliminary injunction and show-cause order entered May 18, 2015.
- Show-cause proceedings began June 8, 2015, continued, and concluded Sept. 23, 2015; the trial court found Revels both criminally and civilly in contempt and entered separate orders (Sept. 23 and detailed Oct. 23, 2015 order).
- Criminal contempt findings focused on past failures to obey the TRO/preliminary injunction (mail, phones, logins, cards); civil contempt findings focused on continuing conduct harming RST (instructing third parties to break cables, using RST assets and connections for a new business, and retaining equipment).
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) improper dual findings for the same conduct, (2) criminal contempt error, (3) defective show-cause order depriving jurisdiction, (4) failure to state “guilty,” and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel. The majority affirmed; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could find both civil and criminal contempt | RST argued contempt findings targeted different misconduct and purposes (punishment v. coercion) | Revels argued statutes bar being found in both civil and criminal contempt for same conduct | Affirmed: court may enter both when based on distinct, discrete conduct arising from same facts (criminal = punishment for past disobedience; civil = coercion to obtain future compliance) |
| Whether criminal contempt finding and sentence were proper | RST: criminal sentence (7 days active of 30) punished past willful disobedience; civil imprisonment was indefinite with purge conditions to coerce compliance | Revels: criminal designation improper because remedies were civil in nature | Affirmed: criminal sentence punitive and civil incarceration was remedial/purge — sentences were consecutive and appropriate |
| Whether the show-cause order conferred jurisdiction for criminal contempt | RST: show-cause order directing appearance and referencing prior TRO/prelim. injunction sufficed; no preliminary finding required for criminal contempt citation | Revels: show-cause order was fatally defective and did not specify criminal contempt allegations | Affirmed: show-cause order was sufficient (indirect criminal contempt procedure satisfied; incorporation by reference to prior orders is permissible) |
| Whether trial court’s failure to use the word “guilty” or counsel’s failure to object required reversal | RST: order plainly applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and explicitly stated Revels was in criminal contempt; counsel’s nonobjection did not prejudice | Revels: absence of the word “guilty” and counsel’s failure to object require vacatur or relief | Affirmed: omission of term was a nonprejudicial technicality (court applied correct standard); ineffective assistance claim fails because no underlying error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Briant v. O'Briant, 313 N.C. 432 (N.C. 1985) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt by purpose — coercion vs. punishment)
- Adams Creek Assocs. v. Davis, 186 N.C. App. 512 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (permitting simultaneous civil and criminal contempt where each is based on distinct contemptible acts)
- Watson v. Watson, 187 N.C. App. 55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (examining purpose and standards distinguishing civil vs. criminal contempt)
- State v. Pierce, 134 N.C. App. 149 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (show-cause order for criminal contempt need not include a prior finding; it can function like an indictment)
- State v. Phillips, 230 N.C. App. 382 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (trial order must indicate application of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for criminal contempt to be reviewable)