State v. Schloegl, 915 N.W.2d 14

Anton Schloegl was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault; the district court entered a written and oral no-contact order prohibiting any contact with the alleged victim S.O., including at the courthouse.
Schloegl discharged his public defender and proceeded pro se at trial.
During trial, S.O. testified for the prosecution; when the court asked if Schloegl had questions, he declined, stating the no-contact order prevented him from questioning her and he did not want more charges.
Later in the trial Schloegl yelled profanities and threw a pitcher; the court removed him, found him in direct criminal contempt, and sentenced him to 90 days.
The jury convicted Schloegl of domestic assault; the district court entered concurrent 90-day sentences for assault to run consecutively to the 90-day contempt sentence.
On appeal the court affirmed the contempt conviction but reversed the assault convictions, holding the unclarified no-contact order violated Schloegl’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right and required a new trial.

Issue	Schloegl's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the no-contact order denied Schloegl his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the victim	The order’s plain language barred any contact, and the court failed to clarify or modify it when Schloegl said he would not question the witness for fear of violating the order, depriving him of the opportunity to cross-examine	The court had no duty to “educate” a defendant; record shows Schloegl had other indications the order allowed court appearances and he never moved to modify it	Court held the order, as unclarified, denied the opportunity for effective cross-examination; convictions reversed and new trial required
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing direct criminal contempt without a jury	Contempt was unjustified or procedurally defective; sentence effectively pushed total punishment beyond six months so jury trial required	Schloegl’s outburst (profanities, throwing pitcher) fit direct contempt; court recited facts and imposed a 90-day summary contempt sentence; jury trial not required because sentence < six months	Court affirmed contempt finding and 90-day sentence; statutory recitation requirement satisfied and no jury required

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits admissibility of testimonial statements)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause violations)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (right to cross-examination limits courts’ exclusion of defense evidence)
Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974) (jury trials required for certain contempt sentences exceeding six months)
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) (distinguishing contempt procedures requiring jury trial)
Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974) (aggregate punishment during trial does not require jury where each contempt treated discretely)
Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322 (1996) (aggregation of multiple short sentences does not trigger right to jury when each sentence is within judge-alone limit)
State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006) (standard of review for Confrontation Clause issues)
State v. Peltier, 874 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2016) (cross-examination as fundamental to fair adversarial process)
State v. Courtney, 696 N.W.2d 73 (Minn. 2005) (harmless-error test for Confrontation Clause violations)
State v. Lingwall, 637 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. App. 2001) (profanity toward court can constitute criminal contempt)