2016 Ohio 5294
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Grant Troja and third-party defendants Sibcy Cline and Nat Comisar moved for sanctions after Crysta Pleatman sent repeated offensive/frivolous emails to opposing parties, counsel, and witnesses.
- After a three-day hearing the trial court (May 28, 2015) found the emails frivolous, imposed monetary sanctions, and orally ordered Pleatman (who acknowledged the order) to cease contacting anyone involved in the case except through her attorney, warning that further contact could result in jail.
- Plaintiffs later filed a joint motion to show cause (August 28, 2015) alleging Pleatman continued to send prohibited emails; counsel filed affidavits authenticating the emails.
- The trial court entered a nunc pro tunc written no-contact order (Nov. 6, 2015) and set a show-cause hearing; Pleatman was personally served with notice and appeared with civil and criminal counsel at the December 14, 2015 hearing.
- The court found Pleatman guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating the no-contact order and sentenced her to five days in jail; she was released pending appeal after this court granted relief and a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Troja) | Defendant's Argument (Pleatman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court held Pleatman in indirect criminal contempt without written charge or adequate notice/opportunity to be heard | The show-cause motion and proceedings provided proper notice and opportunity | Trial court violated R.C. 2705.03 and due process by failing to file a written charge and afford adequate notice/hearing | The joint motion to show cause and proceedings satisfied R.C. 2705.03; Pleatman had notice and opportunity; argument rejected |
| Whether contempt proceedings required compliance with Crim.R. 32 when imposing sentence | Crim.R. 32 protections were not observed (no invitation to speak, no appellate-rights advisal) | Contempt is sui generis and Ohio has not required Crim.R. 32 compliance in criminal contempt | Court held Pleatman cited no controlling authority; Crim.R. 32 not required for contempt here; argument rejected |
| Whether the no-contact order and contempt sanction violated Pleatman’s First Amendment free-speech rights | The order and sanction unlawfully punished protected speech (emails) | The sanction punished the act of sending frivolous, harassing emails in violation of a court order, not protected content | Court upheld contempt: sanction targeted conduct (violation of court order) and the court acted within its authority to control litigation and curb frivolous harassment |
| Whether contempt was properly characterized as indirect criminal contempt | Plaintiffs asserted the misconduct occurred outside court and warranted criminal contempt | Pleatman did not dispute characterization but asserted procedural and constitutional defects | Court affirmed that the conduct was indirect and punishment (unconditional jail) was criminal contempt; characterization proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Denovcheck v. Board of Trumbull County Commissioners, 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 1988) (defines contempt and recognizes inherent and statutory contempt powers)
- Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (Ohio 1980) (distinguishes civil and criminal contempt by character of punishment)
- State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201 (Ohio 1980) (summarily punish direct contempt when judge personally observes the misconduct)
- In re Lands, 146 Ohio St. 589 (Ohio 1946) (defines indirect contempt as conduct outside court that obstructs administration of justice)
- State ex rel. Pfeiffer v. Common Pleas Court, 13 Ohio St.2d 133 (Ohio 1968) (recognizes courts’ inherent power to protect judicial process)
- Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 115 Ohio App.3d 755 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (approvals of limiting litigant filings and curbing frivolous litigation as part of inherent powers)